§ 477. But the expression _it is I your master, who command_ (or _commands_) you, is not a single proposition. It is a sentence containing two propositions. 1. _It is I._ 2. _Who commands you._ Here the word _master_ is, so to say, undistributed. It may belong to either clause of the sentence, i.e., the whole sentence may be divided into Either--_it is I your master_-- Or--_your master who commands you_. This is the first point to observe. The next is that the verb in the second clause (_command_ or _commands_) is governed, not by either the personal pronoun or the substantive, but by the relative, i.e., in the particular case before us, not by either _I_ or _master_, but by _who_. And this brings us to the following question--with which of the two antecedents does the _relative_ agree? with _I_ or with _master_? This may be answered by the two following rules;-- _Rule 1._--When the two antecedents are in the same proposition, the relative agrees with the first. Thus-- 1. It is _I_ your _master_-- 2. Who _command_ you. _Rule 2._--When the two antecedents are in different propositions, the relative agrees with the second. Thus-- 1. It is _I_-- 2. Your _master_ who _commands_ you. This, however, is not all. What determines whether the two antecedents shall be in the same or in different propositions? I believe that the following rules for what may be called _the distribution of the substantive antecedent_ will bear criticism. _Rule 1._ That when there is any natural connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative, the antecedent belongs to the second clause. Thus, in the expression just quoted, the word _master_ is logically connected with the word _command_; and this fact makes the expression, _It is I your master who commands you_ the better of the two. _Rule 2._ That when there is no natural connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative, the antecedent belongs to the first clause. _It is I, John, who command_ (not _commands_) _you_. To recapitulate, the train of reasoning has been as follows:-- 1. The person of the second verb is the person of the relative. 2. The person of the relative is that of one of two antecedents. 3. Of such two antecedents the relative agrees with the one which stands in the same proposition with itself. 4. Which position is determined by the connection or want of connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative. Respecting the person of the verb in the _first_ proposition of a complex sentence there is no doubt. _I, your master, who commands you to make haste, am_ (not _is_) _in a hurry._ Here, _I am in a hurry_ is the first proposition; _who commands you to make haste_, the second.