hat our language has taken it from the _Hebrew_. And Vossius
derives the correspondent Latin preposition AD from the same
source."--_Diversions of Purley_, Vol. i, p. 293.

OBS. 3.--Tooke also says, "I observe, that Junius and Skinner and Johnson,
have not chosen to give the slightest hint concerning the derivation of
TO."--_Ibid._ But, certainly, of his _adverb_ TO, Johnson gives this hint:
"TO, Saxon; _te_, Dutch." And Webster, who calls it not an adverb, but a
preposition, gives the same hint of the source from which it comes to us.
This is as much as to say, it is etymologically the old Saxon preposition
_to_--which, truly, it is--the very same word that, for a thousand years or
more, has been used before nouns and pronouns to govern the objective case.
Tooke himself does not deny this; but, conceiving that almost all
particles, whether English or any other, can be traced back to ancient
verbs or nouns, he hunts for the root of this, in a remoter region, where
he pretends to find that _to_ has the same origin as _do_; and though he
detects the former in a _Gothic noun_, he scruples not to identify it with
an _auxiliary verb_! Yet he elsewhere expressly denies, "that _any_ words
change their nature by use, so as to belong sometimes to one part of
speech, and sometimes to another."--_Div. of Pur._, Vol. i, p. 68.

OBS 4.--From this, the fair inference is, that he will have both _to_ and
_do_ to be "_nouns substantive_" still! "Do (the _auxiliary_ verb, as it
has been called) is derived from the same root, and is indeed the same word
as TO."--_Ib._, Vol. i, p. 290. "Since FROM means _commencement_ or
_beginning_, TO must mean _end_ or _termination_."--_Ib._, i, 283. "The
preposition TO (in Dutch written TOE and TOT, a little nearer to the
original) is the Gothic substantive [Gothic: taui] or [Gothic: tauhts], i.
e. _act, effect, result, consummation._ Which Gothic substantive is indeed
itself no other than the past participle of the verb [Gothic: taujan],
_agere_. And what is _done_, is _terminated, ended, finished_."--_Ib._, i,
285. No wonder that Johnson, Skinner, and Junius, gave no hint of _this_
derivation: it is not worth the ink it takes, if it cannot be made more
sure. But in showing its bearing on the verb, the author not unjustly
complains of our grammarians, that: "Of all the points which they endeavour
to _shuffle over_, there is none in which they do it more grossly than in
this of the infinitive."--_Ib._,