comma/more superior

I would say that, yes, a comma is needed after Vietnam. I can think of no other way to say more superior than more superior. It is the correct expression, unless you substitute a different term, and i see no reason for that.

I think you could eliminate the “more” altogether and simply use “far superior” or “vastly superior” instead. The “more” seems unnecessary. I think I’d trim it.

In all honesty, I did not expect Singapore to beat Vietnam, as Vietnam WAS . .

1. yes

2. no

My experience of ESL students is that they want to keep what they've written intact as much as possible. While i agree with what you are saying, it has become my habit to trim or alter as little as possible. I don't know of any comparative or superlative form of the word superior, so "more superior" or "most superior" would work.

I think you're up a blind alley there, Set.

I'd be uncomfortable with "more superior". Can't say exactly why.

I've noticed that too. Also, I have had trouble deciding whether they were trying to complete an assignment in their own words, or simply looking for the best way to express an idea.

Your particular dialect isn't the only one in existence, Punkey.

[Setanta sweeps furiously, hoping to raise as much dust as he can.]

i wonder if superior means greater and greater means more great then more superior means more more great

speaking of awry smile this snippet is the 7th highest google of 'more superior'

Outlook does come with spell checking and grammar checking but our grammar checking and spell checking is more superior.

EFL teacher here. I also try to leave the learner's original intact as far as possible, but 'superior' is already a superlative. I don't think you can use a comparative with it. Consider: 'more best'.

'More superior' could be used in a slightly different context, though, as in: 'Vietnam had more superior players than...'

Comma, yes. 'More', no. If nothing else, it's wordy. It adds nothing meaningful to the sentence.

In all honesty, I did not expect Singapore to beat Vietnam(,) as Vietnam were far more superior in terms of teamwork, fitness, passing and movements.



No, it isn't, FBM. 'superior' doesn't denote what it is that a superlative denotes, ie. the singlemost of something.

Saying,

"This is a superior product" isn't the same as saying, "This product is [the] best".

"These are the superior teams",

denotes not any superlative sense, just a group of teams that are better than the rest.



Not a good comparison. 'best' is a superlative.



English is a wordy language and a redundant language; that's certainly not a valid test for EFLs to take away from this thread. It could have been that the speaker chose to make it more emphatic.

JoeBlow had some good ideas. Obviously, those are choices that have the ring of "right" to them because they are much more common.

Oops. 'superior' is a comparative adjective, not a superlative. Either way, you shouldn't use 'more' with it. Consider 'more better' instead of 'more best'.

Translated into good English usage:

In all honesty I didn't expect Singapore to beat Vietnam, as Vietnam was vastly superior in terms of teamwork, fitness, passing, and movements.

Another poor comparison, FBM. 'better' like the verb 'went', is part of an irregular group which doesn't follow the normal rules for comparatives/superlatives.

Your "shouldn't" is only an opinion. In other words, it's a prescription and as you know, being an EFL teacher, prescriptions do not drive language. "shouldn't" doesn't illustrate any reason. What's your reason?

What of "more strong", "more strange", "more sweet", "more fitter", "more corrupter" and "most poorest"?

Do you have any problem with them?

Yes. Certainly the last three.

OK, McT. Suppose one were to posit that the Premiere League is superior to all other leagues? But to distinguish between teams in that league, you would need a comparative. And to distinguish the single team greater than all of those, you would need a superlative. It could run like this:

Football is played to a very high standard in Europe. The Premiere League is superior to the teams of other leagues, and Man U is more superior still; but Real Madrid is the most superior of all European teams.

Superior in and of it self is neither a comparative nor a superlative. Although you and i would probably never wander into that minefield, there is nothing in the language which would prohibit one from imagining and employing a comparative and a superlative of a word like superior.

I did a lot of volunteer work with ESL students when i was employed at a midwestern university. Then the Mariel boat lift took place, and thousands of Cubans were farmed out in large groups to universities, which were pressed into service to set up intensive ESL classes for the summer after the boat lift.

In both cases, i found that ESL students hit upon an idea which they wish to express, and they are not interested in your opinion of the best way to express it, they simply want you to correct their grammar with as little alteration of the original expression as possible. They want to say it their way. Without knowing if that motivates the people who post here, i assume as much, due to my experience, and i therefore try to alter what they've written as little as possible, consistent with "good grammar."

In all of these cases, comparatives and superlatives already exist, or are being joked by doubling the comparative or superlative. That is not true of the word superior, which does not come equipped with a comparative and a superlative form.