❝ originem traxerit ex illo Seron, Serò; Quod habet Arg.

"Cod."

Skinner fays," SINCE, a Teut. Sint Belg. Sind. "Post, Poftea, Poftquam. Doct. Th. H. putat deflexum "à noftro Sithence. Non abfurdum etiam effet declinare " à Lat. Exhinc, E & н abjectis, & x facillimâ mutatione "in s tranfeunte." Again he fays," SITH ab A. s. "Siððan, Sydðan. Belg. Seyd, Sint. Poft, Poft illa, Poftea."

After the explanation I have given, I fuppofe it unneceffary to point out the particular errors of the above derivations.

Sithence and Sith, though now obfolete, continued in good ufe down even to the time of the Stuarts.

Hooker in his writings ufes Sithence, Sith, Seeing, and Since. The two former he always properly distinguishes; using Sithence for the true import of the Anglo-Saxon Siðan, and Sith for the true import of the Anglo-Saxon Sidde. Which is the more extraordinary, because authors of the first credit had very long before Hooker's time confounded them together; and thereby led the way for the

4.

prefent

prefent indifcriminate and corrupt ufe of SINCE in all the four cafes mentioned.

Seeing Hooker ufes fometimes, perhaps, (for it will admit a doubt *) improperly. And SINCE (according to the corrupt custom which has now univerfally prevailed in the language) he ufes indifferently either for Sithence, Seen, Seeing, or Sith.

THAT.

There is fomething so very fingular in the use of this Conjunction, as it is called, that one should think it would alone, if attended to, have been fufficient to lead the Grammarians to a knowledge of most of the other conjunctions, as well as of itself. The use I mean is, that the conjunction THAT generally makes a part of, and keeps

*Such is the doubtful ufe of it by Shakespear in the following paffage: "Of all the wonders that I yet have heard,

It seems to me most strange that men fhould fear;
SEEING that death, a neceffary end,

Will come when it will come."

For it may either be refolved thus ;-It seems ftrange that men, SEEING that death will come when it will come, fhould fear:

Or-Strange that men fhould fear; it being SEEN that death will come when it will come.

company

company with most of the other conjunctions.-If that, An that, Unless that, Though that, But that, Without that, Left that, Since that, Save that, Except that, &c. is the construction of most of the fentences where any of those conjunctions are used.

Is it not an obvious question then, to afk, why this conjunction alone should be so peculiarly distinguished from all the rest of the fame family? And why this alone should be able to connect itself with, and indeed be usually neceffary to almost all the others? So neceffary, that even when it is compounded with another conjunction, and drawn into it so as to become one word, (as it is with fith and fince) we are still forced to employ again this neceffary index, in order to precede, and fo point out the fentence which is to be affected by the other Conjunction ?

B.

De, in the Anglo-Saxon, meaning THAT, can easily perceive that SITH (which is no other than the AngloSaxon Side) includes THAT. But when SINCE is (as you here confider it) a corruption for Seeing-as and Seen-as; how does it then include THAT?-In fhort what is AS? For I can gather no more from the Etymologists concern

ing it, than that it is derived either from s or from ALS*: But still this explains nothing: for what ws is, or als, remains likewife a fecret.

H.`

The truth is that as is also an article; and (however and whenever used in English) means the fame as It, or That, or Which. In the German, where it ftill evidently retains its original fignification and use, (as so + also does) it is written-Es.

It

* Junius fays,-" As, ut, ficut, Græcis eft ws." Skinner, whom S. Johnson follows, fays-" As a Teut. Als, ficut; elifo fcil. propter eupho"niam intermedio L."

The German so and the English so (though in one language it is called an Adverb or Conjunction; and in the other. an Article or Pronoun). are yet both of them derived from the Gothic article SA, SQ. And have in both languages retained the original meaning, viz. It, or That.

Mr. Tyrwhit indeed (not perceiving that Al-es and Al-fo are different compounds) in a note on the Canterbury Tales, V. 7327. fays—“ Our "As is the fame with Als. Teut. and Sax. It is only a further corruption "of Alfo." But the etymological opinions of Mr. Tyrwhit (who derives For the Nones from Pro nunc) merit not the smallest attention.

Dr. Lowth, amongst fome false English which he has recommended, and much good English which he has reprobated, fays-" So-As, was used by

"the

It does not come from Als; any more than Though, and Be-it, and If (or Gif), &c. come from Although, and Albeit,

and

"the writers of the last century, to exprefs a confequence, instead of so"THAT. Swift, I believe, is the last of our good writers who has fre"quently used this manner of expreffion. It feems improper, and is de"fervedly grown obfolete."

But Dr. Lowth, when he undertook to write his Introduction, with the best intention in the world, most affuredly finned against his better judgment. For he begins moft judiciously, thus,-" Univerfal Grammar "explains the principles which are common to All languages. The "Grammar of any particular language applies thofe common principles to "that particular language." And yet, with this clear truth before his eyes, he boldly proceeds to give a particular grammar; without being himself poffeffed of one fingle principle of Universal Grammar. Again, he says,"The connective parts of fentences are the most important of all, and re"quire the greatest care and attention: for it is by these chiefly that the "train of thought, the course of reasoning, and the whole progress of the " mind, in continued discourse of all kinds, is laid open; and on the right "use of these, the perfpicuity, that is the first and greatest beauty of style, principally depends. Relatives and Conjunctions are the inftruments of "connection in discourse: it may be of use to point out fome of the most "common inaccuracies that writers are apt to fall into with refpect to them; " and a few examples of faults may perhaps be more instructive, than any "rules of propriety that can be given."

And again," I have been the more particular in noting the proper uses " of these conjunctions, because they occur very frequently; and, as it "was obferved before of connective words in general, are of great importance with respect to the clearness and beauty of style. I may add "too, because mistakes in the ufe of them are very common."