times strains the attention, and causes some degree of obscurity, especially when the non-repetition is in a subordinate clause. (e) Non-repetition of Subject: "So that it is but a groundless fiction, made by those who have either been the authors, or at least have laid down the principles of all the rebellions, and yet would cast that blame on others, and exempt themselves from it; as if they were the surest friends of princes, while they design to enslave them to a foreign power, and will neither allow them to reign nor to live, but at the mercy of the head of that principality to which all other powers must bend; or break if they meet with an age that is so credulous and superstitious as to receive their dictates." BURNET. The omission of the Subject is particularly likely to cause obscurity after a Relative standing as Subject: "Just at this moment I met a man who seemed a suspicious sort of fellow, and turned down a lane (to avoid him. me. Here, if the sentence ended at the word "lane," the ambiguity would be complete. 73. Ambiguous Words, and above all the pronouns, often cause obscurity. A rule should be laid down that no pronoun is to be used unless the context clearly shows what noun is represented by the pronoun. (a) Ambiguity of personal pronouns : 66 By these the King was mollified, and resolved to restore him [the Duke of Monmouth] again to his favor. It stuck much at the confession that he was to make. The King promised that no use should be made of it: but he stood on it, that he must tell him the whole truth of the matter. Upon which he consented to satisfy the King. But he would say nothing to the Duke [of York] more than to ask his pardon in a general compliment." The ambiguity arising from he in a reported speech is well "He told the coachman that he would be the death of him if he did not take care what he was about and mind what he said." Here the intention of the writer was that the he in the "he would be the death" should refer to the coachman, who would cause his employer to lose his life by rash driving, but the employer might very easily be meant. (b) The relative pronoun also causes ambiguity when the antecedent is not clearly indicated. When the relative may refer to a noun in the preceding sentence, or to the whole of the sentence, the ambiguity is sometimes very perplexing; e.g., "There was a public-house next door which was a great nuisance." Here which may refer to the "public-house," but it may refer not to the "public-house," but to the fact that the public-house was next door. This is a very common cause of obscurity. It is a vulgar fault to connect heterogeneous sentences and combine them into one long sentence by a frequent use of the relative pronoun. Every repetition of the relative in the same sentence introduces a possibility of ambiguity, and therefore an excessive use of which (or, as it has been jestingly termed, "the sin of witchcraft") ought to be carefully avoided. The standard prose-writers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries sometimes commit this fault. The following is an instance where it would have been better not to combine two sentences by the relative adverb where, but to keep the two distinct: : "He is supposed to have fallen by his father's death into the hands of his uncle, a vintner near Charing Cross, who sent him for some time to Dr. Busby at Westminster; but, not intending to give him any education beyond that of the school, took him when he was well advanced in literature to his own house, where the Earl of Dorset, celebrated for patronage of genius, found him by chance, as Burnet relates, reading Horace, and was so well pleased with his proficiency, that he undertook the care and cost of his academical education." In this sentence, here, preceded by a full stop, would be an improvement upon where. This leads us to distinguish those cases (a) where the relative who, etc., is divisible into the demonstrative with some conjunction, "and he," "for he," etc., - from those cases "And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailer to keep them safely; who, [and he] having received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks."- Acts of the Apostles, xvi. 23, 24. This use of the Relative is perhaps an imitation of Latin. It is at all events more suitable for Latin, where the Antecedent of the Relative is indicated by the gender and number of the Relative, than for English where no inflectional means exist for connecting the Relative with its Antecedent, so as to avoid ambiguity.1 1 When and where are often thus used. (b) Indivisible Relative: The man that hath no music in himself, Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds, Here the Relative does not introduce an additional fact, but an essential part of the subject, which is not complete without the Relative clause. In this case the Relative cannot be avoided by using the demonstrative and a conjunction. (c) The Negative often causes ambiguity when it is not clear what part of the sentence is modified by not. 66 "The remedy for drunkenness is not-to-be-ascetic, or is-not to-beascetic." "I shall not help-you-because-you-are-my-friend (but because you are in the right)," or "I shall-not-help-you, because-you-are-my-enemy." The following instance, though not itself ambiguous, suggests the ambiguities that may arise in this way: 66 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat." — Isaiah lxv. 22. (A. V.) 66 (d) Any is often ambiguously used. When not modified by a negative, it means any you like," i.e., "every;" but "not any," instead of meaning "not every," means "not a single one." Hence, where the negative is carelessly placed, any becomes ambiguous, because we cannot tell whether it means every or one; e.g.:— "No person shall derive any benefit from this rule who has not been engaged for at least five years to a house of business employing not less than a hundred clerks at any time." This ought to mean " employing at no time less than a hun dred; "" but any in such cases is often confused with some. Again, in "I cannot believe any thing that you say,” and “I cannot believe any thing that you choose to say," any thing means in the first case a single thing," in the second case "every thing." It is quite impossible to determine, without fuller context, the meaning of the word any in such a sentence as,— "I am not bound to receive any messenger whom you may send." (e) But sometimes causes obscurity; and since it may mean, according to the context, except, or on the other hand, or only, must be very carefully handled. (a) "As for the falsehood of your brother, I feel no doubt; but what you say is true." "As for the falsehood of your brother, I feel no doubt but what you say is true." (B) "I expected twelve; but (either only or contrary to my expectation) ten came.” The following is perfectly clear, but shows the possibility of ambiguity: (y) There's ne'er a villain dwelling in all Denmark But he 's an arrant knave. Hamlet. (f) Adverbs, when misplaced, or even inverted for emphasis, may easily cause obscurity. Sometimes, without being positively wrongly placed, they cause confusion when they come at the end of a clause, and are followed by a new clause beginning with a participle. "He left the room very slowly repeating his determination not to obey." "He charged me with peculation falsely asserting that I had not sent in my accounts." |