twice one is two; for it can not be that two (as a single and specific number) are twice one.
two first: Of this expression James Murdock says: "The only argument against the use of
two first, and in favor of substituting
first two, so far as I can recollect, is this: In the nature of things, there can be only
one first and
one last, in any series of things. But—is it true that there can never be more than
one first and
one last? If it be so, then the adjective
first and
last must always be of the
singular number, and can never agree with nouns in the plural. We are told that
the first years of a lawyer's practise are seldom very lucrative. The poet tells us that his
first essays were severely handled by the critics, but his
last efforts have been well received. Examples like these might be produced without number. They occur everywhere in all our standard writers.... When a numeral adjective and a qualifying epithet both refer to the same noun, the
general rule of the English language is to place the numeral first, then the qualifying epithet, and afterwards the noun. Thus we say, 'The
two wise men,' 'the
two tall men'; and not 'the
wise two men' 'the
tall two men.' And the same rule holds in
superlatives. We say 'the
two wisest men,' 'the
two tallest men' and not 'the
wisest two men,' 'the
tallest two men.' Now if this be admitted to be the general rule of the English language, it then follows that we should generally say 'the
two
