[402] The two verbs to sit and to set are in general quite different in their meaning; but the passive verb to be set sometimes comes pretty near to the sense of the former, which is for the most part neuter.  Hence, we not only find the Latin word sedeo, to sit, used in the sense of being set, as, “Ingens coena sedet,” “A huge supper is set,” Juv., 2, 119; but, in the seven texts above, our translators have used is set, was set, &c., with reference to the personal posture of sitting.  This, in the opinion of Dr. Lowth and some others, is erroneous. “Set,” says the Doctor, “can be no part of the verb to sit.  If it belong to the verb to set, the translation in these passages is wrong.  For to set, signifies to place, but without any designation of the posture of the person placed; which is a circumstance of importance, expressed by the original.”—­Lowth’s Gram., p. 53; Churchill’s, 265.  These gentlemen cite three of these seven examples, and refer to the other four; but they do not tell us how they would amend any of them—­except that they prefer sitten to sat, vainly endeavouring to restore an old participle which is certainly obsolete.  If any critic dislike my version of the last two texts, because I use the present tense for what in the Greek is the first aorist; let him notice that this has been done in both by our translators, and in one by those of the Vulgate.  In the preceding example, too, the same aorist is rendered, “am set,” and by Beza, “sedeo;” though Montanus and the Vulgate render it literally by “sedi,” as I do by sat.  See Key to False Syntax, Rule XVII, Note xii.

[403] Nutting, I suppose, did not imagine the Greek article, [Greek:  to], the, and the English or Saxon verb do, to be equivalent or kindred words.  But there is no knowing what terms conjectural etymology may not contrive to identify, or at least to approximate and ally.  The ingenious David Booth, if he does not actually identify do, with [Greek:  to], the, has discovered synonymes [sic—­KTH] and cognates that are altogether as unapparent to common observers:  as, “It and the,” says he, “when Gender is not attended to, are synonymous.  Each is expressive of Being in general, and when used Verbally, signifies to bring forth, or to add to what we already see. The, it, and, add, at, to, and do, are kindred words.  They mark that an addition is made to some collected mass of existence. To, which literally signifies add, (like at and the Latin ad,) is merely a different pronunciation of do.  It expresses the junction of an other thing, or circumstance, as appears more evidently from its varied orthography of too.”—­Introd. to Analyt.  Dict., p. 45.  Horne Tooke,