Another single word choice here; this one is along the lines of magnitude, e.g., good, better, best.

In this case, I'm describing more largeness as "larger," and more smallness as "smaller." The word I need is one that would describe more "medium-ness."

To put it into context, imagine I'm describing different strains of pineapples; specifically the sizes of different fruit parts. Batch-A has more fruit with larger-length tops, more fruit with medium-density pulp, and more fruit with smaller-diameter seeds, while Batch-B has either larger or smaller numbers of fruit corresponding to each of these measurements.

I know there might not be a good answer. But I tried this same approach to another word choice question, and I got plenty of unexpectedly good answers.

  • 1
    It’s just more medium-sized seeds (for example) – Jim Apr 1 '16 at 5:33
  • More medium than has been used. I am not sure if that is correct. ngram shows that it has been used. – Nagarajan Shanmuganathan Apr 1 '16 at 5:34
  • 2
    The goldilocks answer: those on one side are larger, those on the other side are smaller, the ones in the middle are just right! :) – Lawrence Apr 1 '16 at 6:42
  • Mean, average, model and so on. – The Nate Apr 1 '16 at 7:51
  • Well there is always “smaller standard deviation – Jim Apr 1 '16 at 18:28

Your example asks for terms related to the distribution of properties such as pulp density. You can divide density into low, medium and high; but the property is density, not medium. You have a greater percentage of fruit with a pulp density in the preferred range.

There is an entire technical vocabulary to describe population distributions. You are trying to compare a population distribution (of pulp density) with a test function of the desirable range of density (medium density). This is a multiplication operation called a convolution. If you want to talk about more mediumness, find a statistician who is good with convolution theory. It isn't something you can just pickup in a weekend.


More categorized as having large tops isn't larger. More categorized as having small seeds isn't smaller.

Batch A has a greater proportion of long tops, medium pulp, and small seeds than batch B.


First, "fruit with larger-length tops" can be rephrased as "fruit with large-length tops", or better yet, "fruit with longer tops". The comparative form larger isn't necessary in this case because your comparison is between 'normal' and 'large', not between 'large' and 'larger'. Likewise with the term smaller. Hence those in the middle can simply be called "fruit with medium-length tops".

Nevertheless, you raise an interesting question: large and small have comparative forms. Why doesn't medium?

The positive form (e.g. large) and superlative form (e.g. largest) are absolutes - they describe just one thing. Comparative forms (e.g. larger) are different; they describe the relationship between two things.

In the phrase X is larger than Y, X is measured against Y and asserted to have more of something, in this case, size. When used with just a single noun, such as in your phrase "larger-length tops", the comparative larger is used as if it were an absolute, but there is an implicit standard of normal-length tops or medium-length tops against which the larger-length tops are asserted to have 'more' length. Likewise for smaller.

Strictly-speaking, given two larger-length tops A and B, all we can say is that they have more length than a top of standard length. There is no assertion that A and B are of the same length. For example, suppose a top of length 10cm was standard (I'm making this up). Then tops of length 20cm and 30cm would both be said to be 'larger' than standard.

When we come to *medium-length tops", there is no equivalent notion of degree. If two tops are medium-length, they are of the same size as all other medium-length tops. Since it is an absolute, strictly-speaking there is no sense in which one top is 'more medium' than another. As such, there is no practical use for a comparative form for the word medium. Conceptually though, the comparative 'form' would be more medium.


Since mediumer isn't a word try a synonym for medium:

  • median
  • average
  • standard

Batch-A has more fruit with larger-length tops, more fruit with medium-density pulp, and more fruit with smaller-diameter seeds, while Batch-B has an average numbers of fruit corresponding to each of these measurements.


You might consider, [more] medial

adj. Pertaining to a mean or average; average

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary


Since you are comparing sizes in your example, the adjective middling would work.

(As defined by Google)

middling - moderate or average in size, amount, or rank.


There is no qualifying measure of medium. It is or it is not medium.

Similar to the use of unique.

A thing is either unique or it is not.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.