fairness of interpretation, are confined to one and the same noun:  as, “No figures will render a cold or an empty composition interesting.”—­Blair’s Rhet., p. 134.  Here the author speaks of a cold composition and an empty composition as different things. “The metaphorical and the literal meaning are improperly mixed.”—­Murray’s Gram., p. 339.  Here the verb are has two nominatives, one of which is expressed, and the other understood.  “But the third and the last of these [forms] are seldom used.”—­Adam’s Lat.  Gram., p. 186.  Here the verb “are used” has two nominatives, both of which are understood; namely, “the third form,” and “the last form.”  Again:  “The original and present signification is always retained.”—­Dr. Murray’s Hist. of Lang., Vol. ii, p. 149.  Here one signification is characterized as being both original and present. “A loose and verbose manner never fails to create disgust.”—­Blair’s Rhet., p. 261.  That is, one manner, loose and verbose.  “To give a short and yet clear and plain answer to this proposition.”—­Barclay’s Works, Vol. i, p. 533.  That is, one answer, short, clear, and plain; for the conjunctions in the text connect nothing but the adjectives.

OBS. 16.—­To avoid repetition, even of the little word the, we sometimes, with one article, join inconsistent qualities to a plural noun;—­that is, when the adjectives so differ as to individualize the things, we sometimes make the noun plural, in stead of repeating the article:  as, “The north and south poles;” in stead of, “The north and the south pole.”—­“The indicative and potential moods;” in stead of “The indicative and the potential mood.”—­“The Old and New Testaments;” in stead of, “The Old and the New Testament.”  But, in any such case, to repeat the article when the noun is made plural, is a huge blunder; because it implies a repetition of the plural noun.  And again, not to repeat the article when the noun is singular, is also wrong; because it forces the adjectives to coalesce in describing one and the same thing.  Thus, to say, “The north and south pole” is certainly wrong, unless we mean by it, one pole, or slender stick of wood, pointing north and south; and again, to say, “The north and the south poles,” is also wrong, unless we mean by it, several poles at the north and others at the south.  So the phrase, “The Old and New Testament” is wrong, because we have not one Testament that is both Old and New; and again, “The Old and the New Testaments,” is wrong, because we have not several Old Testaments and several New ones:  at least we have them not in the Bible.