OBS. 10.—­When two or more nominatives connected by and are of the same form but distinguished by adjectives or possessives, one or more of them may be omitted by ellipsis, but the verb must be plural, and agree with them all; as, “A literary, a scientific, a wealthy, and a poor man, were assembled in one room.”—­Peirce’s Gram., p. 263.  Here four different men are clearly spoken of.  “Else the rising and the falling emphasis are the same.”—­Knowles’s Elocutionist, p. 33.  Here the noun emphasis is understood after rising.  “The singular and [the] plural form seem to be confounded.”—­Lowth’s Gram., p. 22.  Here the noun form is presented to the mind twice; and therefore the article should have been repeated.  See Obs. 15th on Rule 1st.  “My farm and William’s are adjacent to each other.”—­Peirce’s Gram., p. 220.  Here the noun farm is understood after the possessive William’s, though the author of the sentence foolishly attempts to explain it otherwise.  “Seth’s, Richard’s and Edmund’s farms are those which their fathers left them.”—­Ib., p. 257.  Here the noun farms is understood after Seth’s, and again after Richard’s; so that the sentence is written wrong, unless each man has more than one farm. “Was not Demosthenes’s style, and his master Plato’s, perfectly Attic; and yet none more lofty?”—­Milnes’s Greek Gram., p. 241.  Here style is understood after Plato’s; wherefore was should rather be were, or else and should be changed to as well as.  But the text, as it stands, is not much unlike some of the exceptions noticed above.  “The character of a fop, and of a rough warrior, are no where more successfully contrasted.”—­Kames, El. of Crit., Vol. i, p. 236.  Here the ellipsis is not very proper.  Say, “the character of a fop, and that of a rough warrior,” &c.  Again:  “We may observe, that the eloquence of the bar, of the legislature, and of public assemblies, are seldom or ever found united to high perfection in the same person.”—­J.  Q. Adams’s Rhet., Vol. i, p. 256.  Here the ellipsis cannot so well be avoided by means of the pronominal adjective that, and therefore it may be thought more excusable; but I should prefer a repetition of the nominative:  as, “We may observe, that the eloquence of the bar, the eloquence of the legislature, and the eloquence of public assemblies, are seldom if ever found united, in any high degree, in the same person.”