Talk:worst

most
Worst is a casualism when used as an equivalent of most, as in what they need worst is food --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * = what they need most badly. Equinox ◑ 15:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The adverbial entry reads superlative form of bad, but the adverbial bad reads (now colloquial) Badly. --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You can need something badly. Therefore your need for it is bad. Therefore if your need for it is worse than everybody else's need for it, OR if you need this thing more than you need any other thing, then that need is the worst. Then you need it the worst. This is the normal bad->worst in English. It would be just the same if we had "bad->badder". Equinox ◑ 02:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

“Two worst”, not *“worst two”
Page 974 of Garner's fourth edition reads

Two worst, not *worst two: the first, which is more logical than the second, has always predominated in print.

Why is the first one more logical? According to ngrams, we say the two best/worst but the first/next/last two. I'd add this adjective order issue as a brief usage note --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This is the best thing you have ever posted. It applies to "best" too, you know (the two best, or the best two). And I feel there should be a difference but God knows I can't express it. Equinox ◑ 02:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)