Atheists & Agnostics
Related: About this forumenuegii
(664 posts)You might check in Religion & Spirituality--there are those there who claim to know for sure.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
TZ
(42,998 posts)Why is it here, because unlike most of the universe, that was not a random act....
lindysalsagal
(22,382 posts)....sorry. Wrong question....
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)this
O.E. þis, neuter demonstrative pronoun and adj. (masc. þes, fem. þeos), probably from a North Sea Gmc. pronoun formed by combining the base *þa- (see that) with -s, which is probably identical with O.E. se "the" (representing here "a specific thing" , but it may be O.E. seo, imperative of see (v.) "to behold." Cf. O.S. these, O.N. þessi, Du. deze, O.Fris. this, O.H.G. deser, Ger. dieser. Once fully inflected, with 10 distinct forms (see table below); the oblique cases and other genders gradually fell away by 15c. The O.E. plural was þæs (nom. and acc.), which in Northern M.E. became thas, and in Midlands and Southern England became thos. The Southern form began to be used late 13c. as the plural of that (replacing M.E. tho, from O.E. þa) and acquired an -e (apparently from the influence of M.E. adj. plurals in -e; cf. alle from all, summe from sum "some" , emerging early 14c. as modern those. About 1175 thes (probably a variant of O.E. þæs) began to be used as the plural of this, and by 1200 it had taken the form these, the final -e acquired via the same mechanism that gave one to those.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=t&p=14&allowed_in_frame=0
muriel_volestrangler
(102,500 posts)it makes it sound like a bit of fishing jargon ...
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)I guess I could have guessed.