No comparison is involved with adjectives in the positive degree. An example such as Jan is kleinJan is small in (4a) simply expresses that Jan is part of the set denoted by klein. However, the semantic characterization of the degrees of comparison in the following subsections will make it clear that a semantic representation of the form in (4b) does not fully do justice to the meaning of a scalar adjective such as klein: it does not take into account that the adjective denotes an ordered set of entities along the degrees of an implied scale. The correct characterization is rather as in (4c), which expresses that Jan is small to the degree d; cf. also the discussion in Sections 25.1.1 and 25.2, sub I.

Comparison to a higher degree is usually expressed by morphological means: the examples in (5b&c) show that the majorative and maximative forms are derived from the adjective in the positive degree by adding the affixes -er and -st, respectively. The superlative in the predicative construction in (5c) is preceded by the element het, but this does not hold when the superlative is used in an attributive construction such as (5c'); there is no obvious explanation for this distribution of het. We refer the reader to Section 26.2, sub II, for a detailed discussion of the use of het in predicative constructions.

More examples of majorative and maximative formation are given in (6).

positive	majorative	maximative
dof ‘dull’	doff-er	dof-st
leuk ‘nice’	leuk-er	leuk-st
gemakkelijk ‘easy’	gemakkelijk-er	gemakkelijk-st
sympathiek ‘sympathetic’	sympathiek-er	sympathiek-st

Table (7) shows that the majorative affix -er has an allomorph -der, which appears when the positive form of the adjective ends in the consonant /r/.

positive	majorative	maximative
breekbaar ‘fragile’	breekbaar-der	breekbaar-st
duur ‘expensive’	duur-der	duur-st
somber ‘somber’	somber-der	somber-st
zuur ‘sour’	zuur-der	zuur-st

The majorative/maximative forms of goedgood, veelmuch and weinigfew in Table (8) are irregular; we will see later that the majorative and maximative forms of veel and weinig are also used in the formation of periphrastic comparative and superlative forms of adjectives.

positive	majorative	maximative
goed ‘good’	beter ‘better’	best ‘best’
veel ‘much’	meer ‘more’	meest ‘most’
weinig ‘few’	minder ‘fewer/less’	minst ‘fewest/least’

The form best in (8) is also used without a maximative meaning. This is clear from (9a), since the indefinite article eena is normally not possible in case a maximative is used attributively; cf. Section 26.2, sub I. This use of best also differs from its maximative use in that it can be modified by the adverbial phrase geen/niet al tenot all too in (9b), and can also be combined with amplifying prefixes like opper- and bovenste- in (9c). Although in these cases best seems to behave like an adjective in the positive degree, it has no comparative or superlative form: *bester; *bestste.

Finally, note that best is also possible in fixed expressions like mij bestokay with me and niet de eerste de beste (lit.: not the first the best) in Hij is niet de eerste de beste taalkundigeHe is a prominent linguist.

There are no other irregular majorative and maximative forms, although there are cases such as (10), where there is no obvious positive form corresponding to the majorative/maximative. The adverbial forms liever/liefst have no corresponding adverbial form lief, but instead correspond to the adverb graaggladly; cf. onzetaal.nl/taalloket/graag-grager-graagst-liever-liefst. The regular majorative and maximative forms of graag (i.e. grager and graagst) are obsolete (although they can still be found on the internet).

Similarly, Haeseryn et al. (1997:415) claims that kwaad can be seen as the positive form of erger/ergst. However, this is not obvious, since we also have the positive form erg, as shown in (11). Since the positive form erg in these examples cannot easily be replaced by kwaad, the claim can at best be motivated by the fact that there is a fixed expression in which the two are explicitly contrasted; cf. Het gaat van kwaad tot erger (lit.: It is going from bad to worse).

Overall, it seems fair to say that there are very few morphologically derived irregular majorative and maximative forms. However, there are several systematic cases in which a periphrastic form can or must be used. The examples in (12) show that these periphrastic majorative and maximative forms are created with the help of the forms meer/meestmore/most from Table (8); the discussion of such cases is deferred to Section 26.1.2.

The intended comparison set (i.e. the set of entities involved in the comparison) or standard of comparison may be left implicit, as in (5b&c), but it may also be made explicit. In the case of majoratives, this is done by using a dan/als-phrase that refers to the other entity/entities involved in the comparison: for instance, (13a) indicates that the comparison set includes Peter. In the case of maximatives, the comparison set is made explicit by a van-phrase: (13b) indicates that the comparison set includes all persons in the group under discussion (the pupils of the class).

Example (13a) expresses that the degree to which Marie is intelligent is higher than the degree to which Jan is intelligent. This can be formally expressed by the semantic representation in (14a). Example (13b) expresses that the degree to which Marie is intelligent is higher than the degrees to which the other people in the comparison set are intelligent. This is represented in (14b).

For completeness’ sake, note that in colloquial speech the choice between als and dan in comparatives such as (13a) is subject to personal preference, while in formal speech and writing there is strong normative pressure in favor of dan. For further discussion and references, see taaladvies.net/taal/advies/vraag/354/.

The superlative construction in (13b) should not be confused with the construction in (15a), where the superlative is preceded by dethe. In these cases we are dealing with noun phrases with a phonetically empty head noun and an attributively used adjective modifying the empty noun. That we are dealing with an attributive adjective is clear from the fact that it is inflected with the attributive -e ending, which never occurs with predicatively used adjectives. In other words, example (15a) is structurally parallel to (15b) and de must therefore be considered a regular definite article; recall from the discussion of the examples in (5) that het is not used with attributively used superlatives.

Attributively used superlatives differ from predicatively used ones in that the comparison set need not be expressed by a van-phrase, but can also be inferred from other attributive phrases. This will be clear from the contrast between the primeless and primed examples in (16). Note that the fact that the noun leerling is optional in the primed examples provides additional support for the claim that (15a) contains a phonetically empty noun.

The restrictive relative clause in (17a) reduces the comparison set to those movies I have seen in the last few years. The postnominal PP-modifier in (17b) has a similar function to the adverbial phrase of time (17a), evoking a comparison set that contains the movies that have been released in the specified time span. Postnominal PP-modifiers with sindssince are often used in the same way.

With a comparative dan/als/van-phrase, the comparison usually involves two or more different entities. However, the comparison can also involve a single entity at different stages, as shown in (18a) for the comparative snellerfaster. The time adverb steeds/alsmaarcontinuously expresses that the speed of the train is compared at several points on the time axis and is increasing all the time; in other words, the train is accelerating. This reading is lost when a dan/als-phrase is added: example (18b) expresses that the speed of the train is greater than that of the car at each relevant point on the time axis, but there is no implication that the train is accelerating; it may in fact be slowing down.

In examples such as (19a), where the phrase sneller en sneller can only be used to express that the speed of the train is constantly increasing, the addition of a comparative dan/als-phrase is excluded; (19b) provides another example.

We find something similar for the superlative het snelstthe fastest in (20). Example (20a) compares the speed of the train to Maastricht on all parts of its route and claims that the speed is highest on the section between Utrecht and Den Bosch. Example (20b), on the other hand, compares the speed of the train to Maastricht on the section between Utrecht and Den Bosch with the speed of all other Dutch trains on all other sections of the rail network.

Van-PPs cannot be combined with the maximative in the PP op zijn A-st in the examples in (21). The reason is that op zijn A-st is only used for internal comparison; for instance, (21a) gives an evaluation of Jan on different occasions and expresses that on yesterday’s occasion he excelled himself. Note that (21a) must contain an indication of the time at which the PP applies, unless this can be inferred from the non-linguistic context. In the generic statements in (21b-c), an adverbial phrase of time or place is absolutely necessary.

Note that the PP op zijn vroegst/laatstat the earliest/latest in (22) does not involve an internal comparison, but modifies the time expression in april and claims that the point on the time axis referred to by this expression can be seen as an outer boundary, in the sense that the state of affairs denoted by the clause is assumed to have taken place after/before this point. In contrast to the possessive pronoun zijn in (21), the element zijn in (22) has no referential properties: it is telling that in the English version of this example the article-like element the is used, not a possessive pronoun.

The use of the majorative/maximative generally suggests that the property expressed by the positive form of the adjective can be attributed to the participants: the majorative and maximative constructions in (23) both strongly suggest that Marie is intelligent indeed.

This is not the case, however, when we are dealing with measure adjectives such as grootbig. The two comparative constructions in the primeless examples in (24) are fully equivalent, and we cannot infer from (24a) that Jan is tall, nor from (24b) that Marie is short; cf. Section 23.3.2.2, sub I. The same holds for the superlative constructions in the primed examples.

Yet these inferences can be forced in the comparative constructions in the primeless examples by modifying the comparatives with the adverb nogeven: (25a) implies that Jan and Marie are both quite tall, and (25b) implies that Marie and Jan are both quite short. Observe that nog can also be added to (23a) with a similar effect on the comparison set; while (23a) does not seem to imply anything about Jan’s intellectual abilities, (25c) implies that he is quite intelligent.

The equative degree can only be expressed by a periphrastic construction with evenas, as in (26a). The intended comparison set can remain implicit, but it can also be made explicit by an als-phrase: example (26a) expresses that the comparison set includes Peter. The construction expresses that the degree to which Marie is intelligent is identical to the degree to which Peter is intelligent. This is formally expressed in (26b). The phrase even A als ... is practically synonymous with the phrase net zo A als ...just as A as ...; cf. Section 25.1.3, sub I.

Comparison to a lower degree can only be expressed by using periphrastic constructions: the examples in (27) show that the minorative and minimative degrees are formed by combining the minorative and minimative form of the adjective weiniglittle/few with the positive form of the adjective; cf. Table (8). The intended comparison set may remain implicit, or it may be made explicit by a dan/als or van-phrase, as in the case of higher degree comparison.

Example (27a) expresses that the degree to which Jan is intelligent is lower than the degree to which Marie is intelligent. This can be formally expressed by the semantic representation in (28a). Example (27b) expresses that the degree to which Jan is intelligent is lower than all the degrees to which the other persons in the comparison set are intelligent. This is represented in (28b).

The use of the minorative/minimative does not necessarily imply that the property expressed by the adjective should not be attributed to the participants: neither the minorative construction in (27a) nor the minimative construction in (27b) implies that Jan is actually stupid; he may in fact be quite intelligent. In the comparative construction, however, the implication that Jan is stupid can be forced by modifying the comparative with the adverb nogeven: example (29) implies that both Marie and Jan are rather stupid.

The discussion in the previous subsections is summarized in Table 3, where A stands for the base form (positive degree) of the adjective. The table shows that the majorative and maximative forms are morphologically derived, while all other forms are periphrastic.

		derived form	periphrastic form
equative degree		—	even A (als ...)
comparative	majorative	A + -(d)er (dan/als ...)	meer A (dan/als ...)
	minorative	—	minder A (dan/als ...)
superlative	maximative	A + -st (van ...)	meest A (van ...)
	minimative	—	minst A (van ...)

The morphologically derived majorative and maximative forms are the most common; Section 26.1.2 discusses the contexts in which the more special periphrastic forms can or must be used.