# Fuller or more full



## Unregistered

Rounding out

*Description*:
Rounding out  optical storage offering


A dictionary user looked for this, and we don’t yet have a definition for it in our dictionaries.  Please provide as many translations as possible for the benefit of future dictionary users.

Un usuario de nuestros diccionarios buscó esta palabra y de momento no teníamos una definición para ella en nuestros diccionarios. Por favor brinde cuantas traducciones usted conozca para esta palabra y ello beneficiará a los futuros usuarios de nuestros diccionarios.

Thanks/Gracias,
Mike Kellogg


----------



## mkellogg

Ejemplo: Rounding out our product offerings, we have two specialized devices.


----------



## fenixpollo

I interpret this usage as a synonym for "to complete" or "to make more full or complete".  

In this context, it implies that the product in question is both the last in the list and one that makes the list complete and satisfactory.

*Completar* is my suggestion.
_Para completar los productos que ofrecemos, tenemos dos aparatos/equipos especializados._


----------



## hermenator

fenixpollo said:


> I interpret this usage as a synonym for "to complete" or "to make more full or complete".
> 
> In this context, it implies that the product in question is both the last in the list and one that makes the list complete and satisfactory.
> 
> *Completar* is my suggestion.
> _Para completar los productos que ofrecemos, tenemos dos aparatos/equipos especializados._


 
Friendly correction for fenixpollo:
I think it should be written "fuller" rather than "more full", because it´s a monosyllabic word.


----------



## fenixpollo

Why does it matter whether it's monosyllabic or not?

In addition, even though "fuller" is used, it's better to say "more full".  The suffix "-er" can't be attached to every adjective. A more obvious example is "believable".  It's impossible to say that my explanation is _believabler_ -- it's _more believable_.  "Full" is a less obvious example of this.


----------



## hermenator

fenixpollo said:


> Why does it matter whether it's monosyllabic or not?
> 
> In addition, even though "fuller" is used, it's better to say "more full". The suffix "-er" can't be attached to every adjective. A more obvious example is "believable". It's impossible to say that my explanation is _believabler_ -- it's _more believable_. "Full" is a less obvious example of this.


 
Sorry there fenixpollo, I´m afraid you´re wrong this time. With all due respect, monosyllabic words are the only, by grammar rule, that can take the -er ending (in comparative) or the -est (in superlative). The more and most are only used with bisyllabic or longer polisyllabic words. That´s why you say more believable, and not believabler, but NOT and NEVER because the adverb "more" is more (bisillabic correct)correct or better (monosyllabic good) than the -er suffix. There is only a few exceptions to the rule, which are some bisyllabic words that end in -y (hea-vy=heavier), and can´t recall the remaining 2 or 3 cases. But if you´re willing to learn the rule, be my guest and do some research about it or I will provide them later on the day. Regards


----------



## jacinta

hermenator,

I do not want to start anything over this but I have to add my opinion.  Fuller sounds terrible to say.    I'm afraid you cannot always rely on the rules in English.  This time you will have to trust the native speakers.  Even if "more full" is wrong grammatically, I believe it is said that way.  It sounds better.


----------



## hermenator

What??????? I´m sorry Jacinta, I know this is not the appropiate place nor time, but I can´t pretend I never read that. Being native speakers could be a flaw rather than an edge on things like these. You guys never get to study the rules as much as we do nor ask yourselves why for everything, contrary to us that "have to" study the rules (why) in order to understand the how. You guys can pick up your english practically from anyone, be it a teacher or a taxi driver. If "more full" starts to sounds better to you, maybe it´s time to watch out who you´re hanging around with. On the other hand, we, english language learners, only get to be modeled by the book and its grammar rules. I would believe you if it were on the accent, but you´re talking written, and a book is glitch-proof. 

In a nutshell, I dare you or any other native speaker from the forum to do some research on this before concurring or disagreeing, because in a translation experts forum you can´t always rely on your gut feelings; that´s for amateurs. Finally, I did some googling for you both to save you the sweat and compared in a googlefight both expresions:
Fuller- 35,700,000 results (98%) More full-1,050,000 results (2%)
Here´s the link: http://www.googlefight.com/index.phplang=en_GB&word1=fuller&word2="more+full"

And if that isn´t enough, here´s the rule for both of you:
http://www.english-zone.com/spelling/comparerules.html


----------



## fenixpollo

Jacinta and I are not challenging your expertise on the rule that bi- or poly-syllabic words cannot take "-er".  What we are saying is that while that is true, it doesn't mean that all monosyllabic words can therefore take "-er". 





hermenator said:


> You guys never get to study the rules as much as we do nor ask yourselves why for everything, contrary to us that "have to" study the rules (why) in order to understand the how. You guys can pick up your english practically from anyone, be it a teacher or a taxi driver.http://www.english-zone.com/spelling/comparerules.html


 Your logic about native speakers is also flawed, hermenator. Without speaking for jacinta, I can tell you that I studied grammar and linguistics at the university and have taught languages (yes, I also teach the grammar rules) at all levels for more than 10 years.

Your links are poor evidence because one is google, which returns results that were well-written and those that weren't, those that were written by native speakers and those that weren't.  The other link mentions the mono-/poly-syllabic rules, but not the monosyllabic exceptions like "full".

I am impressed with your understanding of the rules of your second language, but in this case, your reliance on them is doing you a disservice.

Saludos cordiales,
fp


----------



## fsabroso

Hola amigos,

Tranquilos, y centremonos en la pregunta inicial.

Fuller o more full, deberá ir en una nueva consulta, quizas en English Only.

Saludos!


----------



## danielfranco

Y también a veces se usa el verbo "cerrar" de manera figurativa para expresar el concepto de "rounding out":
"... y cerrando esta presentación de nuestros productos, etc."


But I think it sounds a bit _worser _than fp's.


----------



## hermenator

Wow. The problem now seems not to be the -er ending anymore, but rather one with an ego nature. I don´t pretend to be perfect, and god knows I´m far from being there, but when someone corrects me, and I´m not sure of something, I do some research and I thank them in case I was wrong. Of course you seem to have a problem doing so because you´re native and you don´t have to, otherwise this discussion would have never taken place.

Full is not an exception to the rule, monosyllabic exceptions are only: good, well, bad, ill, far, much, and old. I know that internet (google) is not a 100% reliable, but are you suggesting that you and jacinta are more reliable than google or wikipedia? I´d like to see even one link from an english teaching site where you support your so given exception "more full" and I rest my case.


----------



## danielfranco

[Firefighting by pouring some gasoline on an open flame... _regardez:_]

I like the concise and handy table you linked for the rules of comparatives and superlatives. Pretty neat. But, because I'm a cheeky bastard, I kept looking for the part where it says that _*all*_ monosyllabic adjectives and adverbs are made into comparatives by adding -er. Ain't find it yet.
But I did find this:
"Those are some basic rules for spelling comparatives and superlatives, 
but remember, there are always exceptions to every rule...Good Luck!"

I guess that pretty much covers all the words in English. Cool. Thanks again.


----------



## cuchuflete

This is an odd thread, in that the first two posts serve only as background.  The thread topic begins in Post #3, and addresses, with a few fits and starts, the use of a single comparative.

That is the first error.  Look at the phrase in question:



> "to make more full or complete".


  Whatever the grammar prescriptivists may have to offer about a single, naked, isolated instance of a comparative or superlative by itself may simply be background noise in determining the 'best' usage here.

FP's suggested sample usage may be read as meaning,

"to make more full or more complete".  "More" intensifies, compares, modifies...whatever you like, two adjectives, not one.  When the grammarians have all had their say, and the texts are back on the shelf, there remains the question of what is idiomatic and stylistically melodious.  
If 'more full' were to be changed to 'fuller', that would require moving 'more' to come before 'complete'.

Result: "to make fuller or more complete."  (I sincerely hope that completer is not to be found in the grammar texts.)

Finally, there is the question of context, intended audience, and stylistic consistency.   If one is suggesting a sample sentence or phrase for a translation dictionary used mostly by students interested in colloquial usage, it is arguably wise to write in such a style, even if this causes minor offense to those who gasp at sentence-ending prepositions, and the mistaken use of 'who' for 'whom'.  Thank heavens Fowler and others of his fine calibre suggested flexibility in the pursuit of
communication.

Peace to all, mono and poly-syllabic, 
cuchuflete


PS/PD-  Jacinta said it all so much more succinctly:  "Fuller sounds terrible to say."  Yes, fuller sounds pretty sucky in that phrase.


----------



## cuchuflete

Post script:

In the interest of following Daniel's fine practice of keeping the flames bright and warm, and in the comparative tradition of "my grammar text is more prescriptive that your grammar text", here is food for thought:



> The generalizations that seem to account for whether we choose the inflected pattern or the periphrastic are these: (1) most one- and two-syllable adjectives use the inflected pattern; (2) adjectives of three and more syllables almost always use the periphrastic; (3) the higher the frequency of two-syllable adjectives, the more likely they are to inflect for _comparison;_ (4) *the periphrastic more and most may on occasion be used with any one-syllable or high-frequency two-syllable adjective, e.g., more dear, most happy.*


The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. Copyright © 1993 Columbia University Press.


----------



## lforestier

In language, never say this is always right or this is always wrong. I learned early on that things that strike you as incorrect might actually be otherwise.


----------



## hermenator

Hahaha. No cuchuflete. Completer is NOT found in grammar books, because com-plete is bisyllabic and doesn´t end in -y. More complete is correct.

And "fuller" probably sounds sucky, I agree maybe because it resembles the world famous trademark for cosmetics that many of us know. But people, grammar isn´t a matter of cacophony, it´s a matter of pre-determined/previously authorized graphic letter patterns. If the linguistic branch of pragmatics has already accepted the social use of "more full" I would buy that, such as who for whom, while for whilst, though for tho, and so many more.
However, breaking a grammar rule (not a spelling one), cannot be compared to accepting language morphologies aimed to make language more fluent and practical over the age of time, unless that grammar mistake becomes the rule by the usage, and there are more people in the world using the incorrect form than its correct one. But until that googlefight gives a 9 to 1 ratio on the "fuller" vs "more full", I guess we´re going to have to assume that mistake(or exception) isn´t acceptable yet.


----------



## cuchuflete

hermenator said:
			
		

> However, breaking a grammar rule (not a spelling one), cannot be compared to accepting language morphologies aimed to make language more fluent and practical over the age of time, unless that grammar mistake becomes the rule by the usage, and there are more people in the world using the incorrect form than its correct one. But until that googlefight gives a 9 to 1 ratio on the "fuller" vs "more full", I guess we´re going to have to assume that *mistake(or exception)* isn´t acceptable yet.



I am glad to see an open-minded attitude.   As the citation from a different and respected grammar authority in post #15 shows us, there is still a third possibility, beyond mistake or exception:  a perfectly valid usage, albeit in the minority, required or selected for stylistic reasons.


> (4) *the periphrastic more and most may on occasion be used with any one-syllable or high-frequency two-syllable adjective, e.g., more dear, most happy.*


  The difficulty with citing only one grammar source as a sole authority is that there may be other equal but contrary authorities!  

Dueling grammar books can be as uninformative as google fights.  Minority representation in google counts does not necessarily mean that a usage is wrong, though it may be.  It simple tells us that some other usage—which may be wrong!—has assumed greater frequency.


----------



## jinti

<cough>

Getting back to the original question, if I may....

¿_complementar_?


----------



## hermenator

Right. And just to finish, I had noticed that exception to the grammar rule as well, which I did not know and thank the person that shared it, which enables the use for rhetoric purposes. However, that was all I was asking for: a backup link, a gut link just doesn´t do ir for me, even coming from a native speaker or 2. 

However, I think that that exception to the rule, had nothing to do with the specific use of full, saying that "fuller" sounds akward. "More full" using a rhetoric strategy cannot sound better than the regular rule of it "fuller", nor could it possibly be more common. This new rule we are learning states that the comparative rule can be broken for any mono or bisyllabic words, so we can have more fast, instead of faster, more tall, instead of taller, and more full, instead of fuller, but never could we say they look or sound "normal" or correct at first glance. Now i do rest my case and let´s get you back to the case in question. Sorry to all


----------



## fenixpollo

Notice also, that I originally said _to make more full or complete._

Supposing that "fuller" is correct, then I could have said _to make fuller or more complete_.  However, that phrase would have had one comparative with "-er" and one with "more".  Perhaps I chose _more full_ not because "fuller" is wrong, but to complement _more complete_, in order to make the phrase seem more unified and to flow better.


----------



## jacinta

Very nice, fenix!  I agree with your eloquent explanation.  Well done.


----------



## hermenator

fenixpollo said:


> Notice also, that I originally said _to make more full or complete._
> 
> Supposing that "fuller" is correct, then I could have said _to make fuller or more complete_. However, that phrase would have had one comparative with "-er" and one with "more". Perhaps I chose _more full_ not because "fuller" is wrong, but to complement _more complete_, in order to make the phrase seem more unified and to flow better.


 
You´re right. Now that I see it that way, i can see it flow better, because you just use one word to show comparison, and not two. I just didn´t know that it could be done, because it seemed rule-breaker. Well I guess we both learned something new. That´s what this is all about. Sorry for the inconvenience, my friendly correction wasn´t meant to end up in a discussion like it did. Regards


----------



## fenixpollo

No problem, hermenator. This forum exists for exactly this type of learning and discussion. If you hadn't questioned the use of "more full", then it would have been a boring weekend.  

I just have one small correction of your last post, however: 





			
				hermenator said:
			
		

> Sorry for the inconvenience, my friendly correction wasn´t meant to end up in a discussion like it did.





			
				hermenator said:
			
		

> Wow. The problem now seems ... to be ... one with an ego nature. I don´t pretend to be perfect, ... but when someone corrects me, ... I do some research and I thank them in case I was wrong. Of course you seem to have a problem doing so because you´re native and you don´t have to, otherwise this discussion would have never taken place.


 Saludos.


----------



## lunamia

Correct:
This one is fuller.
That one is fuller than this one.
Would you say this one is fuller than that one.
It is fuller today than it was yesterday.
It was filled, so that it was fuller than ever before.
Fill it.

Incorrect:
This one is more full.
That one is more full than this one.
Would you say this one is more full than that one?
It is more full today than it was yesterday.
It was more full, so that it was more fuller than ever before.
Make it more full.

una más opinión


----------



## lunamia

Lo siento.

full, fuller, fullest

es una progression de este tense.

Pero no es iqual de 'rounding off'.


----------



## cuchuflete

All I can offer in reply to "una más opinión" is a gentle suggestion to reread the entire thread.  Hermenator made the wise statement that we need more sources than a "gut" feeling or statement.  He is correct.

English is flexible.  It has "rules" that correspond to the most frequent usages.  When an alternative usage is employed, there is usually a reason, such as emphasis.  Such alternatives may only appear in 5% or 10% of a corpus or google listing.  That, in itself, does not make them wrong.  

The examples in post #25 that are described as "Incorrect" may be both correct and superior, according to context, style, and the specific intent of the author or speaker.


----------



## hermenator

Fenixpollo you´re right it wasn´t friendly at all. I guess I just felt discriminated for not being a native speaker, and furthermore because nor you nor jacinta were right on the issue, and were asking me to trust your gut feeling, when i had taken the time to post some links to support what i was saying.

Reality is, and even though i did not meant to fight over it, you both were wrong over a non-native. And somewhere in the middle of the quarrel, somebody saved you by posting they could be used in "certain rethoric cases", which i guess wasn´t exactly the nature of your original text, but we gave you the benefit of the doubt. 

So, if my posts weren´t friendly at all, I apologize, but on the other hand, I don´t think it was also very nice for you not to accept your mistake when you knew you had it, because I showed you why; it just wasn´t professional. However, i think it helped a lot of forum members to take a side on a very controversial issue, and saving the weekend from boredom.

Thanks for whoever conveyed these posts to another serie of threads. It just didn´t belong anymore to the "round off" issue anymore.


----------



## danielfranco

Maybe you'd like this thread:

"Behold, the native speaker has, erm, spoken..."

I entreat you to contribute there, also.


----------



## fenixpollo

hermenator said:


> Fenixpollo you´re right it wasn´t friendly at all. I guess I just felt discriminated for not being a native speaker, and furthermore because nor you nor jacinta were right on the issue, and were asking me to trust your gut feeling, when i had taken the time to post some links to support what i was saying.
> 
> Reality is, and even though i did not meant to fight over it, you both were wrong over a non-native. And somewhere in the middle of the quarrel, somebody saved you by posting they could be used in "certain rethoric cases", which i guess wasn´t exactly the nature of your original text, but we gave you the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> So, if my posts weren´t friendly at all, I apologize, but on the other hand, I don´t think it was also very nice for you not to accept your mistake when you knew you had it, because I showed you why; it just wasn´t professional. However, i think it helped a lot of forum members to take a side on a very controversial issue, and saving the weekend from boredom.
> 
> Thanks for whoever conveyed these posts to another serie of threads. It just didn´t belong anymore to the "round off" issue anymore.


I never faulted you for not being a native speaker -- I faulted you for relying too heavily on the rules. Grammar rules, especially in English, are more like _guidelines_ and not _laws_, and I will point that out to anyone who treats them as sacred writ -- whether the person is a native speaker or not, because that is a situation up with which I will not put.

By the way, hermenator, you were right that "fuller" is grammatically correct. I will never use it, however.


----------



## jacinta

> because nor you nor jacinta were right on the issue, and were asking me to trust your gut feeling



I'm sorry that you felt slighted by our reaction to this topic, hermenator.  I certainly do not want bad feelings created by my contributions.  I accept that I'm wrong   but I also will never say "fuller".  It still sounds terrible to me.

I also greatly admire your command of English.


----------



## hermenator

Nevermind jacinta and felixpollo. No hard feelings for you both. I appreciate you guys apologizing, really. However, you will have time in this forum to correct me, and when you can, I entreat you to do so please and return me that favour. We are all "apprentices of everything and teachers of nothing", natives and non-natives. But what has to stay here, and is the only thing that could outvalue a correct anwser, is a sense of forum brotherhood. Because we all need from each other every now and then. That´s why I apologized to you both, and I appreciate you not weaving at it. Merry Christmas and my best regards!


----------



## hermenator

danielfranco said:


> Maybe you'd like this thread:
> 
> "Behold, the native speaker has, erm, spoken..."
> 
> I entreat you to contribute there, also.


 
Hey, Daniel, loved that thread. Thank you for bringing hotly debated issues to this forum. I read it in its entirety last night, however I found that after 50 threads or so, there weren´t many issues left to talk about. Give me some time to think, and I´ll see what I can talk about. Some metacognition about this "fuller vs more full" probably. Regards


----------



## itxaro.

Such an interesting thread! I think I've learned much reading it because I have this same doubt with other words like "funnier vs more funnier", "cleverer vs more clever", etc.


----------



## hermenator

itxaro. said:


> Such an interesting thread! I think I've learned much reading it because I have this same doubt with other words like "funnier vs more funnier", "cleverer vs more clever", etc.


 
Funnier vs More funnier? funnier. you either have the more or the -er, but never both.

cleverer vs more clever- more clever. bysillabic words (cle-ver) almost always use more, with the exception of the ones that end in -y like funny (fu-nny) in your prior example.

ps. somehow i saw this "fuller vs more full" thread taken somewhere else, but somehow people keep posting here, instead of in the other one. This thread was originally named "rounding off" i believe, and then it became 2 with the "fuller vs more full" issue. I wish I knew how to manage the thread locations. Anybody want to help?


----------



## geostan

hermenator said:


> Right. And just to finish, I had noticed that exception to the grammar rule as well, which I did not know and thank the person that shared it, which enables the use for rhetoric purposes. However, that was all I was asking for: a backup link, a gut link just doesn´t do ir for me, even coming from a native speaker or 2.
> 
> However, I think that that exception to the rule, had nothing to do with the specific use of full, saying that "fuller" sounds akward. "More full" using a rhetoric strategy cannot sound better than the regular rule of it "fuller", nor could it possibly be more common. This new rule we are learning states that the comparative rule can be broken for any mono or bisyllabic words, so we can have more fast, instead of faster, more tall, instead of taller, and more full, instead of fuller, but never could we say they look or sound "normal" or correct at first glance. Now i do rest my case and let´s get you back to the case in question. Sorry to all



Personally, I wouldn't use either form. If something is full, how can more be added? Can one say emptier or more empty? It either is or isn't? I think this is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Cheers!


----------



## fenixpollo

It's a comparative, Stan. This glass is more full than that glass. Lake Ontario is more full than Lake Erie.  Or... now that I've added water, the beer mug is more full than it was before.

I agree, though, that empty is empty.


----------



## geostan

fenixpollo said:


> It's a comparative, Stan. This glass is more full than that glass. Lake Ontario is more full than Lake Erie.  Or... now that I've added water, the beer mug is more full than it was before.
> 
> I agree, though, that empty is empty.



Your reasoning is specious to me. If you can add water, then the container was not full to begin with. I think the reason that we cannot agree on which is correct is that neither is. There are simply adjectives that are absolutes and as such they do not work with comparatives and superlatives.

Sorry, but that's how I see it.


----------



## fenixpollo

But can a glass not be half empty?  Does "full" mean to you "up to total capacity", or are there degrees of fullness? From a dictionary-definition standpoint, it could seem absolute, but I keep thinking of the famous story of the college professor who fills a glass to the top with rocks, and asks his class if it's full. When they reply "yes", he pours sand in between the rocks, and asks again. When they doubtfully reply "yes, it's full", he pours in beer to the top.

Maybe full does not necessarily mean "can hold no more", and neither does empty mean "totally void". But that's my optimistic, glass-half-full mentality.


----------



## geostan

fenixpollo said:


> But can a glass not be half empty?  Does "full" mean to you "up to total capacity", or are there degrees of fullness? From a dictionary-definition standpoint, it could seem absolute, but I keep thinking of the famous story of the college professor who fills a glass to the top with rocks, and asks his class if it's full. When they reply "yes", he pours sand in between the rocks, and asks again. When they doubtfully reply "yes, it's full", he pours in beer to the top.
> 
> Maybe full does not necessarily mean "can hold no more", and neither does empty mean "totally void". But that's my optimistic, glass-half-full mentality.



I just checked Webster's International Dictionary. The definitions given support my claim. However, it also gives fuller and fullest as the inflected forms. Go figure!

The bottom line for me is that I doubt that I would ever use either form for the reasons I gave, unless I intended it humorously.


----------



## lunamia

... something more on _-er, -est_ verb conjugation (skip everything but the first paragraph unless you are a linguist at heart) also click on the weak verb link on the page for a comparison between the two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_strong_verb


----------



## eliagiratoria

I found this thread extremely interesting, as I was wondering if I should use "fuller" or "more full", as neither sounded right to me. I think geostan may have a point in his (her?) last remark, but then I have doubts about one particular case: If I were to say "mi vida es más plena ahora", how can I express that? Should I say "my life is more complete/more full/fuller now" or is there a better expression? I believe in this situation a comparative will not be wrong.


----------



## ManOfWords

While reading this book I came across it ...


----------



## hermenator

eliagiratoria said:


> If I were to say "mi vida es más plena ahora", how can I express that?
> Should I say "my life is more complete/more full/fuller now" or is there a better expression?



As I previously said: You either use "more" or "-er", but never both.

The grammar rule states the following:
Monosyllabic words always use "-er". Bisyllabic words almost always use "more", except those that end in -y.

Since full is monosyllabic and complete is bisyllabic:
More complete and fuller would be right.
Completer and more full would be wrong.


----------



## Forero

hermenator said:


> As I previously said: You either use "more" or "-er", but never both.
> 
> The grammar rule states the following:
> Monosyllabic words always use "-er". Bisyllabic words almost always use "more", except those that end in -y.
> 
> Since full is monosyllabic and complete is bisyllabic:
> More complete and fuller would be right.
> Completer and more full would be wrong.


I agree that the usual comparative of _full_ is _fuller_, but "more full or complete" is a good combination.

It is not true that monosyllabic words can always use _-er_:

_soileder more soiled 
loster more lost
roter more rote
iller worse more ill than evil
_


----------



## hermenator

Forero said:


> I agree that the usual comparative of _full_ is _fuller_, but "more full or complete" is a good combination.
> 
> It is not true that monosyllabic words can always use _-er_:
> 
> _soileder more soiled
> loster more lost
> roter more rote
> iller worse more ill than evil_



There are always exceptions to a rule, but that's the general rule.

I read the rule many years ago, and now that you brought it up, I think -ed ending adjectives are also an exception.

Therefore, soil-ed would be considered an exception to the monosyllabic words, and treated as bisyllabic.

Rot is not an adjective but a verb. Rot-ten is the adjective, and therefore bisyllabic.

I agree with you that "lost-er" and "ill-er" sound wrong. I wonder what the exception is for those.

But, I disagree with you on "more full" being right.

There's not 2 possible choices. It's always one or the other. And "fuller" is even a renowned brand.


----------



## ManOfWords

...


----------



## Forero

hermenator said:


> There are always exceptions to a rule, but that's the general rule.
> 
> I read the rule many years ago, and now that you brought it up, I think -ed ending adjectives are also an exception.
> 
> Therefore, soil-ed would be considered an exception to the monosyllabic words, and treated as bisyllabic.


Using _more_ with participles is the norm, including with _lost_ (p.p. of "lose"). It is not because of syllable count.





> Rot is not an adjective but a verb. Rot-ten is the adjective, and therefore bisyllabic.


I didn't say "more rot": I said "more rote".





> I agree with you that "lost-er" and "ill-er" sound wrong. I wonder what the exception is for those.
> 
> But, I disagree with you on "more full" being right.
> 
> There's not 2 possible choices. It's always one or the other.


Some comparatives are completely irregular: _good_ -> _better_, _well_ -> _better_, _ill_ -> _worse_, _bad -> worse_, _little_ -> _less_ (for one meaning) or _littler_ (for the other), _few_ -> _less_. There is even a form _lesser_, a comparative of one of the meanings of _little_ (opposite of _great_ when it does not mean "big").

Unfortunately there are multiple correct forms for some adjectives, even without changing the meaning.

_Numb_ (pronounced "numm") -> _number_ (pronounced "nummer") is natural and perfectly usable, but _more numb_ is more common in writing just because _number_ looks just like the noun _number_.





> And "fuller" is even a renowned brand.


_Fuller_ is a word with many uses. The brand you are talking about, whatever it is, is probably the surname of the person who started the company. Lots of people have the surname _Fuller_ because there used to be lots of fullers in society just as there were lots of bakers, coopers, and smiths (common nouns).

But _fuller_ as an adjective is indeed the correct comparative form of _full_.  But that does not make "more full" an impossible combination.

Some examples:

"More full bottles" usually means "more bottles that are full", not "bottles that are more full".

In "I got some empty but I got more full", "more" means "more of them" and does not form a comparative with "full".

"More ill than evil" means "better described as ill than as evil". "More full than empty" can mean either "more of them full than empty"  or "closer to full than to empty".

This thread example "to make more full or complete" does a good job of making a comparative out of the compound "full or complete" rather than making an awkward compound out of comparatives of different types ("fuller or more complete"). Sometimes we have to use phrases like the latter, but here the original, shorter form is the better choice.

 "To make fuller or complete" makes sense too, but it does not mean "to make more full or complete" = "to make full or complete to a greater degree". It would just mean "to make full to a greater degree, or complete (to some degree or other)".

(I can't resist telling you about something I find amusing. Almost every day, I used to drive by a school with a sign above the door saying "Fuller Junior High", meaning "High School named for someone with the surname _Fuller_". One day the local people in charge of the schools in the area decided to go to a differently tiered system, and the next time I drove by the school, the sign above the door read "Fuller Middle". I hope you can see why I couldn't help laughing.)


----------

