l"J^2. on personal pronouns. -igy 



ram by the masculine, and ewe by ihe feminine pro- 

 noun. In this particular case we have another va- 

 riation of the noun respecting gender, viz. widder 

 for a castrated male, but no particular pronoun for 

 it. 



It is true indeed, that few of our nouns admit of 

 t-^iis triple distinction of gender ; though, as we have 

 often occasion to speak of a whole genus, we are on 

 these occasions obliged to make use of such words as 

 we have ; forcing them from their particular mean- 

 ing, to adopt one that is more general ; as thus ; 



" The prober bi-.slnefj of mankind is man." Pope, 



In which the word man, does not denote the male, as 

 opposed to Xhe female, but the whole genus. And the 

 same thing is done with regard to the word horse, 

 and many others, that are often forced to denote the 

 whole genus instead of the male only, which is their 

 proper meani^ig. On all these occasions, the ambiguity 

 arising from the want of a proper term, exprefsive of 

 the genus only, is greatly augmented by the want of 

 the pronoun indefiaite also. This pronoun is .there- 

 fore very much wanted *. 



Plureil number. 



But though the pronoun of the third person be 

 somewhat defective ai to variations in the siiigul^ir 

 number, it is, in the Englilh langauge, in this re- 

 spect, greatly more complete than the plural, which 

 admits of only the single word they, for all genders,' 

 instead of the three that are used in the singular. 



• I find by a lite publlcslioa, t.Vj in G!»ce5 er fli're, there is a provin- 

 c'i.il indcln'te pronoun no: ad 'ptei el», where; it is th: r.o:d;» : ou iv'uH; 

 meins a..^v «nx\^e will, or it will, (Marfliall's survey ofGloces- 

 terfliTe.) 



