Let us take another proposition: "A flower is pleasing."
The word flower alone says nothing to the imagination. Is it a rose or a lily of the valley? The expression is too vague. When the idea of genus is modified by that of species, we are better satisfied.
Let us say: "The flower of the forest." This word forest conveys an idea to the mind. We can make our bouquet. We think of the lily of the valley, of the violet, the anemone, the periwinkle. This restriction gives value to the subject. Forest is more important than the verb which does not complete the idea, and less important than pleasing. Therefore we place 3 upon forest, and shall rank pleasing from 3 to 4, since it closes the assertion.
If we individualize by the word this, we augment the value by giving actuality to the word flower. This has more value than the forest, because it designates the subject. Hence this has four degrees.
As pleasing forms the very essence of our proposition, we are obliged to give it five degrees.
The idea is still somewhat vague. If I specify it still further by saying this little flower, little has a higher value than all the other words.
What value shall we give this adjective? We have reached five, but have not yet fully expressed the idea which impresses us. Little must therefore have six degrees.
This is the sole law for all the languages of the world. There are no two ways of articulating the words of a discourse. When we learn a discourse by heart in order to deliver it, and take no account of the value of the terms, the divine law is reversed.
Now, if we could introduce an expression here, which would at once enhance the value of the word pleasing, it would evidently be stronger than all the others. In fact, if the way in which a thing is pleasing can be expressed, it is evident that this manner of being pleasing will rise above the word itself.