This book deals with comparison of Latin adjectives, i.e. with their ability to form the comparative and/or the superlative degree. It consists of four chapters: ‘Theoretical Background and Methodology’, ‘The Forms of Latin Comparison’, ‘Gradable and Non-gradable Latin Adjectives’ and ‘Conclusions’. It is accompanied by a bibliography and an ‘Index of Adjectives and Adjectival Affixes’.

In the introductory chapter P. reviews approaches to comparison, both in modern Latin grammars and in late Latin grammatical treatises. From general linguistics she adopts some useful concepts, namely gradability, i.e. the (semantic) ability of an adjective to express a greater or a lesser degree of a quality. Gradability can be represented as a scale going from the weakest degree to the strongest or highest degree and adjectives allowing gradability are ‘scalar adjectives’, for example long, as opposed to non-scalar adjectives, for example mortal. Scalar adjectives are basically of two types (p. 25): paired adjectives long – short, the degree of which can increase (open scale adjectives), and paired adjectives full – empty, which have an end-point on a scale (closed scale adjectives). The former type can be modified by the adverb very, the latter by completely. Closed scale adjectives, sometimes called ‘absolute adjectives’, also include pairs such as silent – loud, which admit the adverb completely for one member (silent) and very for the other (loud). P.'s main aim is to determine which Latin adjectives are gradable and which are not. For this purpose, she established a large corpus containing 10,000 adjectives, excerpted from the Oxford Latin Dictionary, and with the help of the Bibliotheca Teubneriana Latina III database, she searched the comparatives and superlatives, both in -ior, -issimus and with magis, maxime, for individual items. The data obtained from the database cover Latin texts until the end of the fifth century ce, including late grammarians and commentaries. After a short discussion of the forms of comparison, namely the comparative and superlative suffixes, irregular comparison and periphrastic comparison with magis and maxime in Chapter 2, the results of the investigations are presented in Chapter 3. Adjectives are classified according to the type of word formation into compound adjectives and derived adjectives. The latter group is further subdivided into adjectives derived from verbs, nouns, adjectives and adverbs. The work with such a huge corpus is undoubtedly impressive; however, the results of the investigation are not without problems.

In a book devoted to comparison of adjectives, one may be surprised that there is almost no serious attempt at defining adjectives as a word class. A ‘syntactic’ definition of adjectives as ‘noun modifiers’ (p. 23) is insufficient. Adjectives can be defined as agreeing noun modifiers that express a (permanent or temporary) property or a quality, unlike pronouns that function as noun determiners. Additionally, adjectives represent an open class in that new adjectives can be created, unlike pronouns, which form a closed class accepting new members less easily. Adjectives can be subdivided into several semantic classes (H. Pinkster, The Oxford Latin Syntax [2015], p. 45, henceforth OLS). The usefulness of the distinction of adjectives and determiners on the one hand and of semantic sub-classes of adjectives on the other hand is proved by their combinability – literature on this topic and on Latin noun phrases in general is ignored by P. Thus, pronouns such as alius, alter, omnis etc. should have been excluded from the corpus. Gradability has already been discussed in relationship with Latin as well as the fact that adjectives expressing a quality (human quality, dimension, size, evaluation etc.) allow comparison, unlike adjectives denoting an inherent property (consularis, ‘consular’), shape (rotundus, ‘round’) or material (ligneus, ‘wooden’). Furthermore, gradability also applies to verbs, such as verbs of feeling (amo, ‘I love’). I do not believe that the existence of names of qualities, for example magnitudo (‘greatness’) is an indicator of gradability of the corresponding adjective (magnus, ‘great’), as is argued on pp. 74–81. For instance, mortalitas (‘mortality’) or inaequalitas (‘unevenness’) does not indicate gradability of mortalis (‘mortal’) or inaequalis (‘uneven’) (non-scalar non-gradable adjectives). Indicators of gradability are degree adverbs: valde (‘very’), vix (‘hardly’), nimium (‘too’) (OLS, pp. 47 and 924), but P. does not work systematically with them.

Another problem is the interpretation of the data. There are instances of only one comparative or superlative form attested for an adjective. P. takes this as evidence of its gradability (p. 36). This is not correct. A very low number of attestations, too, should not be considered as evidence. An example is mortalis, listed under ‘gradable adjectives’ (pp. 214–15, cf. pp. 122–3), because two comparatives are attested. On the contrary, I would argue that a speaker or a writer may employ an unusual word or word form when they have a good reason for doing so. For example, the comparative in: aliquid ipso homine mortalius esse, ‘that something is more mortal than man himself’ (Plin. Nat. 36.110), occurs when Pliny speaks of luxury houses, which may be destroyed by fire. In my opinion, it would have been more useful to exclude all the hapax legomena and other poorly attested adjectives from the corpus and to concentrate on the ‘unexpected’ comparatives and superlatives and the context of their use.

It is true that magis and maxime serve to form periphrastic comparatives and superlatives. However, not all combinations with these adverbs should be interpreted in this way. An example is maxime applied to the adjective mediterraneus: homines maxime mediterraneos, ‘wholly inland population’ (Cic. Ver. 5.70; the Centuripini are meant). Here, maxime has the meaning ‘wholly, entirely’ (Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, s.v. magis 70.52); therefore, mediterraneus cannot be taken as a gradable adjective, as is argued on pp. 60 and 255.

The text is not always easy to follow, and the argumentation is not always clear. For example, it is not obvious why the long section on perfect passive participles (pp. 152–66) ends with a list of adjectives such as altus (‘high’), certus (‘certain’), gratus (‘grateful’) or laetus (‘cheerful’). In synchrony of Latin, participles are primarily non-finite verb forms that have the same syntax as finite verbs; some participles can be used as adjectives or as nouns. It is not correct to treat participles in general as ‘deverbal adjectives’ because this is not their main function in the corpus under examination (from the second century bce to the fifth century ce). I noted some errors, among them: the text should read extra muros, not extra mures (p. 97); Seneca's text reads implentur, not explentur (p. 131); in notescatque magis mortuus atque magis, ‘and, when dead, he may become more and more renowned’ (Catul. 68.47), magis … atque magis goes with notesco ‘I become known’, which is a gradable verb, not with mortuus (p. 176).

The fact that not all examples quoted in the book are translated will be of little help for a more general audience. Additionally, abbreviations and symbols used in comparative Indo-European studies are not explained. Much of the technical terminology will be unfamiliar even to a more general audience of Classicists, for example (adjectives of) appurtenance, possessive adjectives (this term is commonly used about meus) or restrictive adjectives. Additionally, there is some repetition, for example a long quotation of Priscian (without a translation) is indicated twice (p. 17 and 50) or statistics from the Czech corpus (6% of adjectives) are repeated four times.

The book is above all a catalogue of adjectives with a discussion of their etymology from the point of view of Indo-European. It will be of particular interest to Latinists working on the reconstruction from Indo-European.