Page images
PDF
EPUB

both; the article, or the preposition, or both, should be repeated before the second, when the two nouns are intended to denote different things; and should not be repeated, when they are intended to denote the same thing.

2. If there be neither article nor preposition before the first, and if it be the intention of the writer to use the particle or disjunctively, let the first noun be preceded by either, which will infallibly ascertain the meaning.

3. On the contrary, if, in such a dubious case, it be his design to use the particle as a copulative to synonymous words, the piece will rarely sustain a material injury, by omitting both the conjunction and synonyma.

Illus. 3. Pronouns may also be used equivocally.

Example." She united the great body of the people in her and their common interest."*

Analysis. The word her may be either the possessive pronoun, or the accusative case of the personal pronoun, A very small alteration in the order totally removes the doubt. Say," in their and her common interest." The word thus connected, can only be the possessive, as the author doubtless intended it should be in the passage quoted. Illus. 4. Substantives are sometimes used equivocally.

Example. "Your Majesty has lost all hopes of any future excises by their consumption.”+

Analysis. The word consumption has both an active sense and a pasIt means either the act of consuming, or the state of being con

sive.

sumed.

Correction. "Your Majesty has lost all hopes of levying any future excises on what they shall consume."

Illus. 5. Adjectives also are used equivocally.

Example. "As for such animals as are mortal or noxious, we have a right to destroy them."‡

Analysis. Indeed! all men are liable to death, and all men are animals, but we have no right to destroy each other. The word mortal, therefore, in this sentence might be justly considered as improper; (Art. 117. Illus. 3.) for though it sometimes means destructive, or causing death, it is then almost invariably joined with some noun expressive of hurt or danger.

Illus. 6. Verbs often present a false sense more readily than the true.

Example. "The next refuge was to say it was overlooked by one man, and many passages wholly written by another."§

Analysis. The word overlooked sometimes signifies revised, and sometimes neglected. But the participle is used here in the former sense, therefore the word revised ought to have been preferred.

Illus. 7. In the next quotation the homonymous term may be either an adjective or an adverb, and admits a different sense in each acceptation.

Example. "Not only Jesuits can equivocate."||

Analysis. If the word only is here an adverb, the sense is " to equivocate is not the only thing that Jesuits can do." This interpretation, though not Dryden's meaning, suits the construction. The proper and unequivocal meaning, though a prosaic expression of this sense,

*Idea of a Patriot King. Spectator, No. 19.

Guardian, No. 52.

|| Dryden's Hind and Panther.

Ibid. No. 61.

is, "Jesuits can not only equivocate." Again, if the word only is here an adjective (and this doubtless is the author's meaning) the sense is, "Jesuits are not the only persons who can equivocate."

Illus. 8. Equivocal phrases are such as, not the least, not the smallest, which may signify "not any," as though one should say not even the least, not so much as the smallest; and sometimes again a very great, as though it were expressed in this manner, far from being the least or smallest. Now, since they are susceptible of two significations which are not only different, but contrary, they ought to be totally laid aside.

CHAPTER VI.

AMBIGUITY.

194. THE double meaning arises, not from the use of equivocal terms, but solely from the construction; and is therefore distinguished by the name ambiguity. (See Art. 190. and Illus. also Art. 151.)

Illus. In the use of pronouns, the reference to the antecedent should be so unquestionable, that no false meaning could possibly be suggested by the manner of construing the words of which a sentence may be composed.

Examples. "Solomon, the son of David, who built the temple at Jerusalem, was the richest monarch that ever reigned over the Jewish people," and "Solomon, the son of David, who was persecuted by Saul, was the richest monarch."

Analysis. In these two instances, the who is similarly situated; yet in the former, it relates to the person first mentioned; in the latter, to the second. And some previous knowledge of the history of those kings is necessary to enable any reader to discover this relation to the one or to the other.

Correction. " Solomon, the son of David, and the builder of the temple of Jerusalem, was the richest monarch."

Example 2. The following quotation exhibits a triple sense, arising from the indeterminate use of the relative.

"Such were the centaurs of Ixion's race,

Who a bright cloud for Juno did embrace."'*

Analysis. Who embraced the cloud, the centaurs, Ixion, or his race? The relative ought grammatically to refer rather to the centaurs, than to either of the other two, and least of all to Ixion, to whom it was intended to refer.

195. The relatives who, which, that, whose and whom, often create ambiguity, even when there can be no doubt in regard to the antecedent.

Illus. 1. These pronouns are sometimes explicative, sometimes determinative. They are explicative when they serve merely for the

* Denham's Progress of Learning.

illustration of the subject, by pointing out either some property, or some circumstance belonging to it, leaving it, however, to be understood in its full extent!

Examples. "Man, who is born of a woman, is of few days, and full of trouble." "Godliness, which with contentment is great gain, has the promise both of the present life, and of the future."

Analysis. The clause," who is born of a woman," in the first example, and" which with contentment is great gain," in the second, point to certain properties in the antecedent, but do not restrain their signification. For, should we omit these clauses altogether, we could say with equal truth, "Man is of few days, and full of trouble," "Godliness has the promise both of the present life, and of the future." Illus. 2. On the other hand, these pronouns are determinative, when they are employed to limit the import of the antecedent.

Examples. "The man that endureth to the end shall be saved." "The remorse, which issues in reformation, is true repentance."

Analysis. Each of the relatives here confines the signification of its antecedent to such only as are possessed of the qualification mentioned. For it is not affirmed of every man that he shall be saved; nor of all remorse, that it is true repentance.

196. From the above examples, it may fairly be collected, that with us the definite article is of great use for discriminating the explicative sense from the determinative. In the first case it is rarely used, in the second, it ought never to be omitted, unless when something still more definitive, such as a demonstrative pronoun, supplies its place. (Art. 57. Illus.)

Example. "I know that all words which are signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake and cavil.”*

Analysis. As words, the antecedent, has neither the article nor a demonstrative pronoun to connect it with the subsequent relative, it should seem that the clause," which are signs of complex ideas," was merely explicative, and that the subject, words, was to be understood in the utmost latitude. This could not be the noble writer's sense, as it would be absurd to affirm of all words, that they are signs of complex ideas.

Correction. "I know that all the words which are signs of complex ideas;” or, “I know that all those words which are signs." Either of these ways makes the clause beginning with the relative serve to limit the import of the antecedent.

197. In numberless instances we find the pronouns his and he used, in like manner, ambiguously; and the latter especially when two or more males happen to be mentioned in the same clause of a sentence.

Obs. In such a case, we ought always either to give another turn to the expression, or to use the noun itself, and not the pronoun; for when the repetition of the word is necessary, it is not offensive. (Ïllus. 3. p. 111. and Art. 152.)

* Bolingbroke's Dissertation on Parties, Lect. 12.

198. There is in adjectives, especially, a great risk of ambiguity, when they are not joined to the substantives to which they belong. (Illus. 5. p. 111.)

Illus. 1. This hazard arises, in our language, from our adjectives having no declension, by which case, number, and gender are distinguished. Their relation, therefore, is not otherwise to be ascertained than by their place. (Illus. § II. p. 64.)

66

Example. God heapeth favours on his servants ever liberal and faithful."

Analysis. Is it God or his servants that are ever liberal and faithful? If the former, then the sentence should run thus; "God, ever liberal and faithful, heapeth favours on his servants." If the latter, then "God heapeth favours on his ever liberal and faithful servants," or his servants who are ever liberal and faithful."

[ocr errors]

Illus. 2. Two or more adjectives are sometimes made to refer to the same substantive, when, in fact, they do not belong to the same thing, but to different things, which, being of the same kind, are expressed by the same generic name.

Example. "Both the ecclesiastic, and the secular powers concur

red in those measures."

Analysis. Here the two adjectives, ecclesiastic and secular, relate to the same substantive, powers, but do not relate to the same individual things; for the powers denominated ecclesiastic are totally different from those denominated secular. This too common idiom may be avoided either by repeating the substantive, or by subjoining the substantive to the first adjective, and prefixing the article to the second as well as the first.

Correction." Both the ecclesiastic powers, and the secular concurred in those measures," or, "Both the ecclesiastic powers, and the secular powers ;" but the former is perhaps preferable.

199. The construction of substantive nouns is sometimes ambiguous. (Illus. 4. p. 111.)

Example 1. "You shall seldom find a dull fellow of good education, but (if he happen to have any leisure upon his hands) will turn his head to one of those two amusements for all fools of eminence, politics or poetry.'

[ocr errors]

Analysis. The position of the words politics or poetry makes one at first imagine, that along with the term eminence, they are affected by the preposition of, and construed with fools. The repetition of the to after eminence would have totally removed the ambiguity.

Example 2. "A rising tomb the lofty column bore."t

Analysis. Did the tomb bear the column, or the column the tomb? But this fault is frequent, in the construction of substantives, especially in verse, when both what we call the nominative case and the accusative are put before the verb. As in nouns those cases are not distinguished either by inflection, or prepositions, so neither can they be distinguished in such instances by arrangement.

200. Ambiguity in using the conjunctions.

Example. "At least my own private letters leave room for a politi

* Spectator, No. 43.

† Pope's Odyssey, Book 12.

cian, well versed in matters of this nature, to suspect as much, as a penetrating friend of mine tells me.”

Analysis. The particle as, which in this sentence immediately precedes the words a penetrating friend, makes frequently a part of these compound conjunctions as much as, as well as, as far as. It will, therefore, naturally appear, at first, to belong to the words as much, which immediately precede it. But as this is not really the case, it ought to have been otherwise situated; for it is not enough that it is separated by a comma, these small distinctions in the pointing being but too frequently overlooked.

Correction. "At least my own private letters, as a penetrating friend of mine tells me, leave room for a politician well versed in matters of this nature to suspect as much."

201. Sometimes a particular clause or expression is so situated, that it may be construed with different members of the same sentence, and thus exhibit different meanings. (Illus. 8. p. 112. and Art. 151.)

Example. "It has not a word but what the author religiously thinks in it."*

Analysis. One would at first imagine the author's meaning to be, that it had not a word which the author did not think to be in it. Alter a little the place of the last two words, and supply the ellipsis, and the ambiguity will be removed.

Correction." It has not a word in it, but what the author religiously thinks it should contain."

202. The squinting construction,† another fertile source of ambiguity, is, when a clause is so situated in a sentence, that one is at first at a loss to know whether it ought to be connected with the words which go before, or with those which come after.

Example. "As it is necessary to have the head clear, as well as the complexion, to be perfect in this part of learning, I rarely mingle with the men, but frequent the tea tables of the ladies."‡

[ocr errors]

Analysis. Whether, "to be perfect in this part of learning, is it necessary to have the head clear as well as the complexion;" or, to be perfect in this part of learning, does he rarely mingle with the men, but frequent the tea tables of the ladies?" Which ever of these be sense, the words ought to have been otherwise arranged.

*Guardian, No. 4. Guardian, No. 10. 11

† Construction louche, it is called by the French.

« PreviousContinue »