[390] Dr. Latham, conceiving that, of words in apposition, the first must always be the leading one and control the verb, gives to his example an other form thus:  “Your master, I, commands you (not command).”—­Ib. But this I take to be bad English.  It is the opinion of many grammarians, perhaps of most, that nouns, which are ordinarily of the third person, may be changed in person, by being set in apposition with a pronoun of the first or second.  But even if terms so used do not assimilate in person, the first cannot be subjected to the third, as above.  It must have the preference, and ought to have the first place.  The following study-bred example of the Doctor’s, is also awkward and ungrammatical:  “I, your master, who commands you to make haste, am in a hurry.”—­Hand-Book, p. 334.

[391] Professor Fowler says, “One when contrasted with other, sometimes represents plural nouns; as, ’The reason why the one are ordinarily taken for real qualities, and the other for bare powers, seems to be.’—­LOCKE.”, Fowler’s E. Gram., 8vo, 1850, p. 242.  This doctrine is, I think, erroneous; and the example, too, is defective.  For, if one may be plural, we have no distinctive definition or notion of either number. “One” and “other” are not here to be regarded as the leading words in their clauses; they are mere adjectives, each referring to the collective noun class or species, understood, which should have been expressed after the former.  See Etym., Obs. 19, p. 276.

[392] Dr. Priestley says, “It is a rule, I believe, in all grammars, that when a verb comes between two nouns, either of which may be understood as the subject of the affirmation, that it may agree with either of them; but some regard must be had to that which is more naturally the subject of it, as also to that which stands next to the verb; for if no regard be paid to these circumstances, the construction will be harsh:  [as,] Minced pies was regarded as a profane and superstitious viand by the sectaries. Hume’s Hist. A great cause of the low state of industry were the restraints put upon it. Ib. By this term was understood, such persons as invented, or drew up rules for themselves and the world.”—­English Gram. with Notes, p. 189.  The Doctor evidently supposed all these examples to be bad English, or at least harsh in their construction.  And the first two unquestionably are so; while the last, whether right or wrong, has nothing at all to do with his rule:  it has but one nominative, and that appears to be part of a definition, and not the true subject of the verb.  Nor, indeed, is the first any more relevant; because Hume’s “viand” cannot possibly be taken “as the subject of the affirmation.”  Lindley Murray, who literally copies Priestley’s note, (all but the