Defining comparative law is difficult simply because it is polysemic and contingent in nature. A framework for refinement, differentiation and affirmation is represented by the negative paradigm. Comparative law’s inadequacy to designate the subject is best exemplified by the following neologism, ‘Comparative Law Methodology’. It is argued the latter phrase is distinguished from the former by a redundant lexical addition. Thus, this triad translates a latent divide between object and method already contained in the former idiom. Morphological observations of the distinctive features of a terminology indicate these can be affected alternatively from subservience to precedence by diachronic semantical variations. Modern comparatists naturally concerned with the ascertainment of explicit methodological frameworks extending beyond tacit use improperly refer to this tautological expression.
Morad El Kadmiri (Mon,) studied this question.