AMBIGUITY IN PUBLIC WRITING.
In Brenan's Composition and Punctuation, published by Wilson, Royal Exchange, he strongly condemns the one and the other, as used for the former and the latter, or the first and the last. The understood rule is, that the one refers to the nearest or latter person or thing mentioned, and the other to the farthest or former; and if that were strictly adhered to, no objection could be raised. But I have found, from careful observation for two or three years past, that some of our standard writers reverse the rule, and use the one for the former, and the other for the latter, by which I have often been completely puzzled to know what they meant in cases of importance. Now, since there is not the slightest chance of unanimity here, I think the author is right in condemning their referential usage altogether. A French grammarian says, "Ce qui n'est pas clair n'est pas Français;" but though French is far from having no ambiguities, he showed that he fully appreciated what ought to be the proudest boast of any language, clearness. There is a notable want of it on the marble tablet under the portico of St. Paul's, Covent Gardens, which says:
"The church of this parish having been destroyed by fire on the 17th day of September, A.D. 1795, was rebuilt, and opened for divine service on the 1st day of August, A.D. 1798."
The writer, no doubt, congratulated himself on avoiding the then common error, in similar cases, of "This church having," &c.; for that asserted, that the very building we were looking at was burned down! But in eschewing one manifest blunder, he fell into ambiguity, and inconclusiveness equally reprehensible. For, as it never was imperative that a parish church should be always confined to a particular spot, we are left in doubt as to where the former one stood; nor, indeed, are we told whether the present building is the parish church. Better thus: "The church of this parish, which stood on the present site, having," &c.
Even with this change another seems necessary, for we should then be virtually informed, as we are now, that the church was rebuilt, and opened for divine service, in one day![[1]] Such is the care requisite, when attempting comprehensive brevity, for the simplest historical record intended to go down to posterity. It is no answer to say, that every one apprehends what the inscription means, for that would sanction all kinds of obscurity and blunders. When Paddy tells us of wooden panes of glass and mile-stones; of dividing a thing into three halves; of backing a carriage straight forwards, or of a dismal solitude where nothing could be heard but silence, we all perfectly understand what he means, while we laugh at his unconscious union of sheer impossibilities.
Clarus.
Footnote 1:[(return)]
The following arrangement, which only slightly alters the text, corrects the main defects: "The church of this parish, which stood on the present site, was destroyed by fire on [date] and, having been rebuilt, was opened for divine service on [date]."