Sect. II.

The double meaning....Part II. Ambiguity.

to refer to the nominative as its antecedent. The reason is, the nominative, to which it most naturally refers, whether actually preceding or not, is always conceived in the order of things to precede. If then it was the son who spoke, say,

And thus the son his fervent sire addrest.

If the father,

And thus his son the fervent sire addrest.

In confirmation of this, let us consider the way in which we should express ourselves in plain prose, without any transposition of words. For the first, Thus the son addressed his father;" for the second,

Thus the father addressed his son;" are undoubtedly good whereas, to say, in lieu of the first, "Thus "his son addressed the father ;" and, in lieu of the second, "Thus his father addressed the son," are not English. By the English idiom, therefore, the possessive pronoun is, in such instances, more properly joined to the regimen of the verb than to the nominative. If this practice were universal, as it is both ́natural and suitable to the genius of our tongue, it would always indicate the construction wherever the possessive pronoun could be properly introduced. For this reason I consider the two following lines as much clearer of the charge of ambiguity than the former quotation from the same work:

Young Itylus, his parent's darling joy,

Whom chance misled the mother to destroy *.

* Pope's Odyssey, Book 19.

Of perspicuity.

For though the words whom and the mother are both in the accusative, the one as the regimen of the active verb misled, the other as the regimen of the active verb destroy, yet the destroyer or agent is conceived in the natural order as preceding the destroyed or patient. If, therefore, the last line had been,

Whom chance misled his mother to destroy;

it would have more naturally imported, that the son destroyed his mother; as it stands, it more naturally imports, agreeably to the poet's design, that the mother destroyed her son; there being in this last case no access for the possesive pronoun. I acknowledge, however, that uniform usage cannot (though both analogy and utility may) be pleaded in favour of the distinction now made. I therefore submit entirely to the candid and judicious, the propriety of observing it

for the future.

THE following is an example of ambiguity in using conjunctions: "At least my own private letters leave room for a politician, well versed in matters of this nature, to suspect as much, as a penetrating friend "of mine tells me *." The particle as, which in this sentence immediately precedes the word 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.

*Spectator, No. 43.

Sect. II.

The double meaning.... Part II. Ambiguity.

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. Alter the arrangement, then, and the expression will be no longer ambiguous: "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." In the succeeding passage, the same author gives us an example of ambiguity, in the application of an adverb and a conjunction: "I beseech you, sir, to inform these fel

lows, that they have not the spleen, because they "cannot talk without the help of a glass, or convey "their meaning to each other without the interposi"tion of clouds *." The ambiguity here lies in the two words not and because. What follows because appears, on the first hearing, to be the reason why the person here addressed, is desired to inform these fellows, that they are not splenetic; on the second, it appears to be the reason why people ought to conclude, that they are not; and on the third, the author seems only intending to signify, that this is not a sufficient reason to make any body conclude that they are. This error deserves our notice the more, that it is often to be found even in our best writers.

SOMETIMES a particular expression is so situated,

*Spectator, No. 53.

66

1

Of perspicuity.

that it may he construed with more or less of another particular expression which precedes it in the sentence, and may consequently exhibit different senses: "He has, by some strange magic, arrived at the va"lue of a plumb, as the citizens call a hundred thou“sand pounds *" Is it a plumb, or half a plumb, which the citizens call "a hundred thousand pounds?" I will spend a hundred or two pounds, rather than be enslaved t." This is another error of the same sort, but rather worse. Hundred cannot regularly be understood between the adjective two and its substantive pounds. Besides, the indefinite article, a cannot properly express one side of the alternative, and sup ply the place of a numeral adjective opposed to two, The author's meaning would have been better expressed either of these ways: "I will spend one or "two hundred pounds," or, "I will spend one hun"dred pounds or two, rather than be enslaved." In the former case it is evident, that the words hundred pounds belong to both numeral adjectives; in the latter, that they are understood after the second. reference and construction of the concluding words in the next quotation, is very indefinite: "My chris"tian and surname begin and end with the same let"ters" Doth his christian name begin with the same letter that his surname begins with, and end with the same letter that his surname ends with? or, Doth his christian name end with the same letter with

ر

The

* Tatler, No. 43. Swift to Sheridan. Spec. No. 505. O.

Sect. II.

The double meaning....Part II. Ambiguity.

which it begins, and his surname also end with the same letter with which it begins? or, lastly, Are all these four letters, the first and the last of each name, the same letter *?

SOMETIMES a particular clause or expression is so situated, that it may be construed with different members of the sentence, and thus exhibit different meanings: "It has not a word," says Pope," but what "the author religiously thinks in it "One would at first imagine his meaning to be, that it had not a word which the author did not think to be in it. Al ter a little the place of the two last, words, and the ambiguity will be removed: "It has not a word in it, "but what the author religiously thinks." Of the same kind also is the subsequent quotation: Mr "Dryden makes a very handsome observation on O"vid's writing a letter from Dido to Æneas, in the following words t." Whether are the following words, the words of Dido's letter, or of Dryden's observation ? Before you read them, you will more readily suppose them to be the words of the letter; after reading them, you find they are the words of the observation. The order ought to have been," Mr Dryden, in the following words, makes a very handsome observation "on Ovid's writing a letter from Dido to Eneas."

86

* An example of the first is Andrew Askew, of the second, Hezekiah Thrift, and of the third Norman Neilson.