Comparative or superlative?

If I saw "nearer" or "closer" in a situation involving two animals (or two anythings), I'd wonder if the editor had gone walkabout. It doesn't sound better to my ear. If you want to keep it to two, you could always say "the one on the left" and "the one on the right."

you only need to say the nearer or closer if there is more them one other animal, but if there are only two animals then you don't need to say that.
if there are three animals in the situation then you we need to say which animal.

Adding "of the two" seems to make it work better - the nearer of the two - but I get what you're saying; weirdly if you use size comparisons the comparative seem to work ok - the larger, the smaller etc.

Does it matter which one turned? Can you just say "one of"?

I avoid unnecessary detail if possible, but appreciate it may be necessary to know. Alternatively, I'd give it an identifier (the spotted one, for example) which sneaks in a bit of description while also distinguishing from the rest.

I agree with Bacchus - adding "of the two" definitely sounds better to me.

Toto Too said:

Or should I just change the situation so there are three animals?

Click to expand...

If that makes it easier, but as Harlequin suggested, why not just say one of the animals turned? Or distinguish them in some other way: the short one, the fat one, the gray one, the leggy one. Or if it's crucial that the reader know it was the one closest to the character, then just say "The near animal turned to look at her." That's a legitimate way to write it.

Aim for what sounds smooth, rather than worrying over what's technically correct.

Technically all of these examples are grammatically correct...

• I saw a saw saw a saw.
• That that exists exists in that that that that exists exists in.
• Before was was is, is was was.
• Who polices the police? Police police police police. Who polices the police police? Police police police police police police
• James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher. (James, [while John had written “had,”] had written “had had”; “had had” had left a better effect on the teacher.)
• Time times time times time squared equals time times time times time times time.
• That that is is that that is not is not is that it it is.

...but they sound awful.

I try and go with what sounds smooth and uncluttered, and avoid "sticky words" when possible. Sometimes I go too far; case in point, see the words highlighted in red at the start of my sentence. "Try and" is wrong, it should be "try to", but I hate the alliteration so frequently write "try and" which elides more neatly. FIGHT ME, GRAMMAR GUARDIANS. (Just kidding, I'd normally edit out "try and/try to" entirely and write something else.)

This is all a very wordy way of saying, you could make a comparative work, and have it be correct, but it will sound awkward to constantly say "the nearer/nearest" one without any other descriptor.

As a reader, I would give no pause to either of those examples. But I also agree with Harlequin in the matter of simplifying, avoiding unnecessary detail in a trivial description. What reader will really care if the animal you mention is the "nearer/nearest", or even if the POV narrator really takes note of that at the moment? Or if it even matters?

caw