Of perspicuity. BUT there is often an ambiguity in the relatives who, which, that, whose, and whom, even when there can be no doubt in regard to the antecedent. This arises from the different ways wherein the latter is affected by the former. To express myself in the language of grammarians, these pronouns are sometimes explicative, sometimes determinative. They are explicative, when they serve merely for the 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. Of this kind are the following examples: "Man, who is born of 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." The clause, who is born of woman," in the first example, and "which with contentment is great gain" in the second, point to certain properties in the antecedents, but do find this pious admonition :- "Conservez vous dans l'amour de Dieu, qui peut vous garantir de toute chute." I ask whether the antecedent here be l'amour or Dieu, since the relative qui is of such extensive import as to be applicable to either. The expression would be equally ambiguous in Italian, "Conservatevi nell' amour di Dio, che "vi puo conservare senza intoppo." In English, according to the present use, there would be no ambiguity in the expression. If the author meant to ascribe this energy to the devout affection itself, he would say, "Keep yourselves in the love of God, which can "preserve you from falling;" if to God, the great object of our love, he would say, "who can preserve you."-This convenient distinction was not, however, uniformly observed with us till about the middle of the last century. Sect. II. The double meaning.... Part II. Ambiguity. 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." "Godli ness has the promise both of the present life and of "the future." On the other hand, these pronouns are determinative, when they are employed to limit the import of the antecedent, as in these instances: "The man that endureth to the end, shall be saved." "The "remorse, which issues in reformation, is true repent"ance." 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. FROM comparing the above examples, it may be fairly 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 *. The following * In this respect the articles are more subservient to perspicuity in our tongue than in many others. In French, a writer must give the article indiscriminately in all the instances above specified. Thus, "L'homme, qui est né de la femme, vit très-peu de tems, “et il est rempli de miseres; and "L'homme, qui perseverera jusqu'à la fin, sera sauvé." In like manner, "La pieté, qui jointe avec le contentement est un grand gain, a les promesses de la vie "presente, et de celle qui est à venir;" and "Le remors, qui #6 a Of perspicuity. passage is faulty in this respect: "I know that all "words which are signs of complex ideas, furnish mat"ter of mistake and cavil +." As words, the antecedent, has neither the article nor a demonstrative pronoun to connect it with the subsequent relative, it would seem that the clause," which are signs of com"plex ideas," were merely explicative, and that the subject words were to be understood in the utmost latitude. This could not be the writer's sense, as it would be absurd to affirm of all words, that they are signs of complex ideas. He ought therefore to have said either," 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 ta limit the import of the antecedent. THERE are certain cases, it must be owned, wherein the antecedent would require the article, even though the relative were intended solely for explication, as in these words of the psalmist: "My goodness extendeth "not to thee; but to the saints, and to the excellent ડ ones, in whom is all my delight *." The last clause is probably not restrictive, the words saints and excel "boutit à la reformation, est le vrai repentir." The like indistinctness will be found to obtain in Italian and some other modern languages, and arises, in a great measure, from their giving the article almost invariably to abstracts. Bolingbroke's Dissertation on Parties, Let. 12. * Psalm xvi. 2, 3. Sect. II. The double meaning....Part II. Ambiguity. lent ones necessarily requiring the article. Now, when such antecedents are followed by a determinative, they ought, for distinction's sake, to be attended with the demonstrative pronoun, as thus, "but to those "saints, and to those excellent ones in whom THROUGH not attending to this circumstance, the translators of the Bible have rendered the following passage ambiguous, even in regard to the antecedent : "There stood by me this night the angel of God, whose "I am, and whom I serve t." The relatives here whose and whom refer more regularly to angel than to God. This, however, is not agreeable to the sense of the apostle. The words, therefore, ought to have been translated "an angel of the God," or, "-of that "God, whose I am, and whom I serve ‡." For though the term god in strict propriety can be applied only to one, and may therefore be thought to stand on the same footing with proper names, it is, in the common way of using it, an appellative, and follows the construction of appellatives. Thus we say, "the God of Abraham,"" the God of armies." Besides, Paul in the passage quoted was speaking to heathens; and this circumstance gives an additional propriety to the article. 66 FOR an instance of ambiguity in the construction of the pronoun his, I shall borrow an example from a French grammarian*; for though an equivocal word + Acts xxvii. 23. † Αγγελο τε Θε8, & εἰμὶ καὶ ὁ λατρεύει, 66 Of perspicuity. 66 can rarely be translated by an equivocal word, it is very easy, when two languages have a considerable degree of similarity in their structure and analogy, to transfer an ambiguity from one to the other. The instance I mean is this, Lisias promised to his father never to abandon his friends." Were they his own friends, or his father's, whom Lisias promised never to abandon? This sentence rendered literally would be ambiguous in most modern tongues. In the earliest and simplest times, the dramatic manner in which people were accustomed to relate the plainest facts, served effectually to exclude all ambiguities of this sort from their writings. They would have said, " Lisias gave a promise to his father in these words, I will "never abandon my friends," if they were his own friends of whom he spoke; "your friends," if they were his father's. It is, I think, to be regretted, that the moderns have too much departed from this primitive simplicity. It doth not want some advantages, besides that of perspicuity. It is often more picturesque, as well as more affecting; though, it must be owned, it requires so many words, and such frequent repetitions of he said, he answered, and the like, that the dialogue, if long, is very apt to grow irksome. But it is at least pardonable to adopt this method occasionally, where it can serve to remove an ambigui 66 * It would not be ambiguous in Latin. The distinction which obtains in that tongue between the pronouns suus and ejus, would totally preclude all doubt. |