# You've got another 'thing' / 'think' coming?



## river

Is the expression "you've got another *think* coming"?  or "another *thing *coming"?

_Moderator note: This thread has become long enough that  you might like to begin your journey by reading a summary of the first  288 posts by someone who read them all. If so, go to Post 289 ... and thank you, n0lqu._


----------



## Le Pamplemousse

You've got another thing coming.


----------



## fenixpollo

It's easy to confuse thing for think on this one, because the /ng/ of _thing_ is palatized in the back of the throat and is practically swallowed; then, it runs into the first /k/ of _coming._ 

Now, it would only be thinkif someone were making a play on words.  For example:
_If you think I'm going to give in, you've got another think coming._

But the expression is definitely you've got another *thing* coming.


----------



## Brioche

river said:
			
		

> Is the expression "you've got another *think* coming"? or "another *thing *coming"?


 
I'm pretty sure that I have heard this expression only in variations of:
"_If you *think* that, then you've got another *think* coming."_

It would not sound half so snappy if you said
"If you think that, you're wrong, so wait for some new thoughts to come."

It does not make sense to me with "thing".


----------



## the-pessimist

Brioche? are you serious about your statement below?  



> It does not make sense to me with "thing".


 
OK, i'm not australian, so perhaps you are telling the truth. 

but i can say that in 'England', it would most likely be used as:
"you've got another thing coming"

although, i have heard "think" before many a time, _having said that,_ i wouldn't go so far as saying it does not make sense - as it used so _often_ like this!


----------



## DesertCat

Brioche said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that I have heard this expression only in variations of: "_If you *think* that, then you've got another *think* coming."_



This is how I've heard it as well.  It's one of those things a parent says to a child when they've done something bad.  I can't think of many times when you'd want to use this phrase.  It looks really odd in writing.


----------



## panjandrum

The expression I have always heard is "think".
In the contexts where I hear this, the alternative "thing" version would be meaningless.

*If that's what you think, you have another think coming.*
... is clear and forceful, indicating that your current "think" will soon be rudely displaced by another.  Typically said by persons in authority to children.

Amusingly, the first two Google hits for "you've got another thing coming" are about this as an erroneous form of the think version.

Comparing Google hits for the two phrases is not helpful as the *thing* version appears in song lyrics plastered all over the web.  As a result, there now appears to be a different expression, with thing, that means goodness knows what.


----------



## Brioche

ibby said:
			
		

> Brioche? are you serious about your statement below?
> 
> OK, i'm not australian, so perhaps you are telling the truth.
> _I am. I don't knowingly contribute falsehoods to this site!_
> 
> but i can say that in 'England', it would most likely be used as:
> "you've got another thing coming"
> 
> although, i have heard "think" before many a time, _having said that,_ i wouldn't go so far as saying it does not make sense - as it used so _often_ like this!


 
"think" phonetically is /thingk/, if followed by _come_, you need two /k/ sounds  /thingk-kumming/.
If you don't clearly enunciate, it becomes /thingkumming/ and thus _thing coming._

Sorry, but my poor little Aussie brain can't see any sense in _thing _in the main clause and _think_ in the subordinate clause.


----------



## You little ripper!

I agree with Brioche, Panj and Desert Cat.  It makes absolutely no sense to use the word _thing. _I've always thought it was_ think._
Brioche's suggestion of it being a pronunciation thing also makes sense.


----------



## morgoth2604

According to this site which is pretty accurate most of the time, it's you've got another think coming (which also makes sense!)!

Here’s a case in which eagerness to avoid error leads to error. The  original expression is the last part of a deliberately ungrammatical  joke: “If that’s what you think, you’ve got another think coming.” 
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/thing.html​


----------



## suzi br

Charles Costante said:
			
		

> I agree with Brioche, Panj and Desert Cat. It makes absolutely no sense to use the word _thing. _I've always thought it was_ think._
> Brioche's suggestion of it being a pronunciation thing also makes sense.


 
Just another UK born-and-bred person here - adding her voice to the view that it is generally THINK!  (Where in the UK do you live, ibby?!)


----------



## fenixpollo

After polling every friend and family member I have, I've concluded that the expression is *you've got another thing coming*.  The respondents emphasized that the phrase is used in a semi-threatening or threatening way.  

All of them said that this expression with "think" sounds very odd, although a couple of them raised their eyebrows as they contemplated the "interesting spin" that the expression would have if it were worded with "think."  But it isn't, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## panjandrum

OED:
*think, n.* 2b *to have another think coming*: to be greatly mistaken. 
*1937* _Amer. Speech_ XII. 317/1 Several different statements used for the same idea - that of _some one's making a mistake_...[e.g.] you have another think coming.


----------



## fenixpollo

Thanks for the link on the "mis-use" of the expression you've got another think coming.  This implies that there is only one correct version of this expression.  

So, what you guys are saying is that this expression I've used my entire life, which is used throughout the Western U.S. and by everyone I know, as well as by Judas Priest, is wrong? That the version I use is not as valid as the version you use?

If that's the case, then my next question is this: To what degree do you view this thing negatively? I mean, when you hear someone say "another thing coming", do you dislike it? Does it barely register? Is it mildly annoying? Are you able to listen to the famous song of that name without retching? Does it grate on you? Have you sworn an oath to destroy it?

I'm asking because I'd like to know how much I might be irritating others by saying it. Oh... but if you think I'm going to change the way I say it, you have another thing coming. 

Cheers!


----------



## panjandrum

I have difficulty in judging my reaction to another thing coming because I have never heard it used 
I have never heard the song.
I have taken no oaths to destroy the thing.
It doesn't grate - yet - but I could become sensitised to it if someone kept on saying it in my presence...
... but if they did, I am fairly sure that I would add the k myself almost without noticing, unless you were being very articulate and the difference between the first think and the second thing happened to be really clear.  Then I would simply consider this another example of a misheard idiom and tolerantly carry on listening.  I would of course have missed a few words after the thing while I had a think 

There is no doubt that the thing version is alive and well, I believe mostly in AE.  What is the thing that is coming?


----------



## JazzByChas

In truth, or, for sooth, I have always heard, something to the effect of, "If you think that, then you've got another thought coming..." Maybe I have lived under a verbal rock. 

Now I _*have*_ heard, "You've got another *thing* coming" although I'm not sure if I understand exactly what this is trying to communicate, other than the speaker wishes to convey that his/her idea strongly disagrees with the person spoken to.


----------



## river

I, like Fen, have always understood "thing" instead of "think." But I stand corrected. This reminds me of "I could care less" instead of "I could not care less" or "you can't have your cake and eat it too" instead of "you can't eat your cake and have it too."


----------



## fenixpollo

river said:
			
		

> I, like Fen, have always understood "thing" instead of "think." But I stand corrected. This reminds me of "I could care less" instead of "I could not care less" or "you can't have your cake and eat it too" instead of "you can't eat your cake and have it too."


 I disagree.  I think that this expression with "thing" is just as meaningful as it is with "think."  

On the other hand, "I could care less" means the opposite of "I couldn't care less;" and the idiom about cake just strikes me as the same sentence with the phrases reversed.

Until someone proves that the version with "think" is somehow better, more original or more logical, I _don't_ stand corrected.


----------



## river

As I _think_ about it, "You've got another think coming," meaning, "You need to think about this some more" or "Your ideas about this matter need to change" makes more sense than "thing."

By the way, you can "have your cake and eat it," but you cant' "eat it and have it."


----------



## panjandrum

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> [...] Until someone proves that the version with "think" is somehow better, more original or more logical, I _don't_ stand corrected.


I don't feel the need to try - it is clear that there is a very well-established "thing" movement.  My curiousity about the nature of the "thing" is (almost) genuine.  I would like to know more about thingism.  What are the characteristics of this thing?


----------



## ElaineG

I, like *fenix*, am a thing-er.  I don't say this that often, but if I did, I'd be angry and annoyed.  

BF:  I hope you don't mind that I used our vacation money to order plasma screen TVs for every room of the apartment.

EG:  You can cancel that order right now, because if you think we're actually buying them, you've got another thing coming, mister.

Admittedly, "think" would have a great deal of logic here.  But that's too gentle -- merely inviting him to think again on the error of his ways.  Instead, an unspecified but ominous and menacing "thing" is headed his way.  The mystery of the "thing" adds to its threat, but it falls into the same generally nasty category as the implied "things" in "you'll get what's coming to you", "you'll get exactly what you deserve."


----------



## fenixpollo

panjandrum said:
			
		

> I would like to know more about thingism. What are the characteristics of this thing?


Examples?  Hmm.  Here's one from the famous (?) song called "You've Got Another Thing Coming":





			
				Judas Priest said:
			
		

> If you think I'll sit around as the world goes by
> You're thinkin' like a fool cause it's a case of do or die
> Out there is a fortune waitin' to be had
> You think I'll let it go you're mad
> You've got another thing comin'


 The lyrics don't suggest what the thing is.  One could only imagine what "the Metal Gods" might have in store as a punishment for someone who disagreed with them enough to make them angry.  This is the idea behind the expression, which suggests that the thing in question is retribution for having wronged the speaker.

 If the person talking is a mother, then the _thing_ that is coming may be a scolding or a spanking.

_If you think I'm going to clean your room for you, you've got another thing coming!  Get up there and pick up your toys, mister, before I give you a good lashing!_

The _thing_ could also be a piece of someone's mind or a good talking to.

_If he thinks I'm going to go to a boring party just so he can put in an appearance, he's got another thing coming!  And I'm going to tell him so!_

Funny... the only examples that come to mind begin with "If you think..."  I can see where a logical conclusion to this idea might be "...another _think_ coming."  It seems to emphasize a misconception on the part of the other person, rather than wrongdoing.

I have officially thought too much about this expression.  Good day.


----------



## NealMc

Hi
I've always "heard" it as another thing coming.
As in....
If you think you're having ice cream for pudding, you've got another thing coming. (A clip around the ear hole / tapioca and being sent to bed early).

I was not an especially naughty child but I see this phrase as a portent of doom for someone who's done something bad. Definitely a physical thing in this context.

I like the idea of quoting Judas Priest as an example of linguistic clarity.

Hellbent for Leather
Neal Mc


----------



## the-pessimist

as i said in my original post.. i am not denying whether think is correct or not - i was just shocked that it made no sense - you still may say it makes no sense, but please do not make me out saying think is 'incorrect'

it does not make obvious sense to me, as to have 'another' one coming, i would have to normally say, "i have a think coming", or "i have a think" which i have never heard. i don't know if any of you speak like that when stating that you have a thought (coming?)?

and to have another thinG coming, fine, maybe incorrect - but does make sense to me, i don't see how it is so complicating.

you have something else coming your way - like a shock, a punch, being fired, etc.


----------



## panjandrum

Many of the usage examples given relate to parent/child comments. I am convinced that this has such deep roots in childhood that any attempt to suggest that people should change would be akin to asking them to deny their heritage - so I am not going to try.

But I feel the need for a little clarification of the thinkists' position.

If you think black crows are white, you have another think coming - which is that I, personally, will make it my business to eradicate the black crows are white thought from your mind and insert, forcibly if necessary the alternative thought (the other think) that black crows are in fact black. (The use of "think" as a noun is well-established.)


----------



## cuchuflete

river said:
			
		

> Is the expression "you've got another *think* coming"?  or "another *thing *coming"?


When I first read this post, I thought the answer was perfectly obvious:  BOTH.

I have now read that it is one way for some and the other for those across the way. However, I've heard, and probably used, both. The "think" version refers to prior statements about what someone thinks, and the 'thing' variety is used....well, er, um...to refer to prior statements about what someone thinks.



> If “Lost” star Michelle Rodriguez thinks she’s going to get a little slap on the wrist for her drunken-driving charge in Hawaii, she’s got another thing coming, according to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office. Rodriguez is still on probation for a DUI in November 2003 and a hit-and-run in July 2003, both in Los Angeles.


So there.  Now you have three authorities for the 'thing' version, Pollo, me, and the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office.


----------



## You little ripper!

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> If that's the case, then my next question is this: To what degree do you view this thing negatively? I mean, when you hear someone say "another thing coming", do you dislike it? Does it barely register? Is it mildly annoying? Are you able to listen to the famous song of that name without retching? Does it grate on you? Have you sworn an oath to destroy it?
> 
> I'm asking because I'd like to know how much I might be irritating others by saying it.
> Cheers!


If I heard the average person using that phrase, I would automatically assume they were saying_ think,_ but if I heard you say it Fenixpollo, I may well feel compelled to give you a clip around the ears!  Just joking!


----------



## cirrus

My tuppence worth here.  I'm definitely in the thing camp.  The way people from round Manchester pronounce their ings (the final G is definitely voiced as in sinGinG a sonG) means that the nk couldn't be confused with a ng.  Unless of course I've heard it and said it wrong all my born days which could very much be the case.


----------



## mhp

ElaineG said:
			
		

> I, like *fenix*, am a thing-er.  I don't say this that often, but if I did, I'd be angry and annoyed.
> 
> BF:  I hope you don't mind that I used our vacation money to order plasma screen TVs for every room of the apartment.
> 
> EG:  You can cancel that order right now, because if you think we're actually buying them, you've got another thing coming, mister.
> 
> Admittedly, "think" would have a great deal of logic here.  But that's too gentle -- merely inviting him to think again on the error of his ways.  Instead, an unspecified but ominous and menacing "thing" is headed his way.  The mystery of the "thing" adds to its threat, but it falls into the same generally nasty category as the implied "things" in "you'll get what's coming to you", "you'll get exactly what you deserve."


 I had always used ‘thing’ in the sense above—just one of those things that I did without thinking. Some years ago, someone corrected me and after seeing the impeccable logic of the thing, I started using think, but grudgingly. However, I really think ElaineG explanation is a good thing and I think I’m going to switch back to using thing. This is just a personal thing, and I would definitely not even think about ‘correcting’ a person who uses think.


----------



## vlazlo

Ok, so I skimmed through most of the threads and maybe someone already mentioned this but...  Isn't *think* a conjugated verb, coming from the infinitive to think?  (i think, you think, he/she/it thinks...) Thing makes much more sense to me.  You have another thing coming infers a contradiction, that which one wants is not going to take place, rather some*thing* else will be the result.  Think sounds bizarre to me at best.


----------



## Aupick

Think is also a noun, though, as in "I'll have to have a think about that...".

The OED gives two meanings of "think" as a noun: "act of thinking" as in the example above, and "opinion":


> "My own private think is that he will execute another voluntary." (Lady Granville, 1835)
> "The cobbler..dispenses his ‘think’..to all comers on all subjects." (J. Brown, 1861)


It's this one that leads to "you've another think coming".


----------



## Isotta

I thought it was "thing," as in a general ominous phrase. Though as soon as I read the original post, I realised I couldn't really say--I don't ever remember seeing written. 

I'd say in Appalachia it's "thing," since the pronunciation of "thing" turns into a drawn-out "thang," whereas "think" doesn't become become "thank." And it's definitely "hey's got annuthuh thangkummin."

To answer panj's question about what "thing" could possibly mean, I suppose "thing" defines itself somewhere along the lines of "Thing One" and "Thing Two."

S.


----------



## whatonearth

Well...this is all news to me! I'd _always_ thought it was "thing" but it appears that I may be incorrect in that...

Every day's a school day round here isn't it? ;-)


----------



## Pnotunr

fenixpollo said:


> It's easy to confuse thing for think on this one, because the /ng/ of _thing_ is palatized in the back of the throat and is practically swallowed; then, it runs into the first /k/ of _coming._
> 
> Now, it would only be thinkif someone were making a play on words. For example:
> _If you think I'm going to give in, you've got another think coming._
> 
> But the expression is definitely you've got another *thing* coming.


 
Nope. the expression is "think" and it's used the way you used it above. I used to be admonished with the "If you think so & so, you've got another think coming.


----------



## chesty

Hello. I should like to air my opinion.

Firstly, i should say that i have never (knowingly) heard: "you've got another _think _coming", and i was frankly shocked to see it as part of a dictionary entry in *13.

I have heard the expression many times, and it has always played in my ears as: "you've got another _thing _coming".

To me, it is an expression which is laced with menace; it means that grave consequences, of which you are currently ignorant, await you. Sometimes it means that the consequences await irrespective of any change of mind or action.

e.g. "If he thinks he's going to get away with taking a skim, then he's got another thing coming!".

It's the sort of fighting talk one might expect from the mouth of a gangster of the 1930/40s in U.S. films of the same period.

...so, greatly mistaken - yes; but a little more than that all the same.


----------



## fenixpollo

Pnotunr said:


> Nope. the expression is "think" and it's used the way you used it above. I used to be admonished with the "If you think so & so, you've got another think coming.


 Well, pnotunr... It is obvious from the posts in this thread that both ways (with "think" and with "thing") are correct. Your "nope" is a little too sure of itself. 

If you think that yours is the only right way, then you have another thing coming.

Cheers.


----------



## chesty

Hmm. Menacing words Fenix.


----------



## Pnotunr

fenixpollo said:


> Well, pnotunr... It is obvious from the posts in this thread that both ways (with "think" and with "thing") are correct. Your "nope" is a little too sure of itself.
> 
> If you think that yours is the only right way, then you have another thing coming.
> 
> Cheers.


 
Granted. I should have said "However if you don't use it with the obligatory 'If you think so and so', then "thing" would make more sense. 

I did do some research on the web and found some good examples of this being used in literature, often the source of many of our current expressions. Each usage cited the expression as I mentioned. 

Judas Priest has caused "thing" to be totally acceptible in modern usage. I would say that most folks born while listening to this song use the "thing" version. I never heard it any other way than my example until their song.

Jon


----------



## chesty

Judas Priest! you're breaking the law! 

I just asked a sixty year old native speaker of BE and she said that "i had another coming".

She's never heard of Judas Priest.

Maybe you've been playing their records backwards!


----------



## Dimcl

panjandrum said:


> I don't feel the need to try - it is clear that there is a very well-established "thing" movement. My curiousity about the nature of the "thing" is (almost) genuine. I would like to know more about thingism. What are the characteristics of this thing?


 
I'm with you on this Panjandrum.  I have never before heard the expression "You've got another thin*g* coming" but have heard "You've got another thin*k* coming" a million times.  What "thing" is coming?  Have I missed some context?  

First Person:  "I think you're misguided"

Second Person:  "You've got another thin*g* coming"??????


----------



## .   1

I had always thought that the use of thing in this chant was erroneous but after reading fenixpollo's most fervent defence of his phrase I am now convinced that his phrase makes just as much sense as the phrase I have heard all my life.

If that's what you think! (There is an expectation created that some*thing* beneficial is going to happen to the thinker) Then you've got another thing coming! (A thing different from the thing you are expecting).

This makes perfect sense to me.
In some strange way it seems to be slightly less colloquial and more direct.

.,,


----------



## mhp

Here is what the American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms has to say. “Have another thing coming” is not in the dictionary. “Have another think coming” is defined as: “Be mistaken and therefore have to reconsider or rethink one’s answer.”  
  Equivalent to “have another guess coming.”
  Related to “guess again.”
  My examples:
  If you think it is worth $20 you have another think coming.
  You think it’s worth $20? Guess again!
--edit--
 I do use “Think again, buddy!” as an invitation for a bar fight. But “another think/thing coming” sounds to me too much like a mother scolding her child to be of any real use to me.


----------



## Dimcl

. said:


> I had always thought that the use of thing in this chant was erroneous but after reading fenixpollo's most fervent defence of his phrase I am now convinced that his phrase makes just as much sense as the phrase I have heard all my life.
> 
> If that's what you think! (There is an expectation created that some*thing* beneficial is going to happen to the thinker) Then you've got another thing coming! (A thing different from the thing you are expecting).
> 
> This makes perfect sense to me.
> In some strange way it seems to be slightly less colloquial and more direct.
> 
> .,,


 
You're right in your example except that my knowledge and useage of the phrase "You've got another thin*k *coming" is argumentative and your example isn't.  "If that's what you think!" is agreeable and doesn't invite an argument.  "You've got another thin*k *coming" is, in my experience, a challenge to the other person that their thinking needs to be changed.


----------



## .   1

Dimcl said:


> You're right in your example except that my knowledge and useage of the phrase "You've got another thin*k *coming" is argumentative and your example isn't. "If that's what you think!" is agreeable and doesn't invite an argument. "You've got another thin*k *coming" is, in my experience, a challenge to the other person that their thinking needs to be changed.


Yes I quite agree but I think that fenixpollo has given me another thing to use.
I will now be able to use the thing chant when I will brook no argument.

.,,


----------



## sound shift

I'd never seen the "thing" version until I looked at this thread. I'm in the "think" camp.


----------



## fenixpollo

chesty said:


> Hmm. Menacing words Fenix.


  I didn't mean to be menacing, chesty. I was merely continuing to take issue with the attitude that there is one right way to say this. I was guilty of that attitude in my first post:





fenixpollo said:


> But the expression is definitely you've got another *thing* coming.


...but I have since seen the light, thanks to the helpful and tolerant foreros above. 


Pnotunr said:


> Granted. I should have said "However if you don't use it with the obligatory 'If you think so and so', then "thing" would make more sense.
> 
> Judas Priest has caused "thing" to be totally acceptible in modern usage. I would say that most folks born while listening to this song use the "thing" version. I never heard it any other way than my example until their song.


 Pnotunr, I know that you weren't trying to be confrontational. I'm sorry if I came across as such.

However, I'm interested in this theory that one British metal band bears the sole responsibility for the propagation of the "thing" version of the expression.  It sounds as if you're saying that the "think" version is correct and that it would be the only version, if not for the (mis-)use of those rockers.


----------



## JamesM

sound shift said:


> I'd never seen the "thing" version until I looked at this thread. I'm in the "think" camp.


 
I'll add my voice to the "think" camp.  I have never heard "thing coming", only "think", and it is always in a sentence that includes "think" twice:

EX: "If you think you're the God's gift to business, buddy, you've got another think coming"


----------



## .   1

I have absolutely no doubt that the original version was along the lines of;
If that's what you think then you have another think comming.

This is a very clever double statement.

The 'think comming' is from the 'piece of my mind' that I am about to give to you which will cause you to revise your thinking.

I have noticed that many people who learn English as adults have great difficulty saying think and many native speakers will slur think to thing.  This gives an easy road to allow the saying to change over the years.

I think that the think version retains both original meanings;
I am going to think really hard at you
and
You will change your thinking.

I further think that the thing version is simply a clever statement that you will not get what you want.

.,,


----------



## JamesM

> I further think that the thing version is simply a clever statement that you will not get what you want.


 
I agree.  That's how it strikes me as well - as a play on the words of the original cliché, and a clever one at that.


----------



## equivoque

My childhood was punctuated with "another THING coming". It was assumed that my expectations were well in excess of what was, in reality, my fate.  

e.g.: "If you thought you were - going to the movies this afternoon/getting that bike for Christmas/getting away without doing the dishes - Then you have another THING coming".

I didn't have to do much thinking, the other "thing" was not a good thing.

(monkey sees, monkey does ---- I say that now, in an equally menacing tone!)


----------



## illuminaut

chesty said:


> I have heard the expression many times, and it has always played in my ears as: "you've got another _thing _coming".
> 
> To me, it is an expression which is laced with menace; it means that grave consequences, of which you are currently ignorant, await you. Sometimes it means that the consequences await irrespective of any change of mind or action.


I agree, there's something menacing about the ominous _thing_. It also works if you replace the first think, i.e.

"If he believes he's going to get away with taking a skim, then he's got another thing coming!".

whereas this wouldn't make much sense anymore with "a think" because now even the play of words is absent, and all that's left is an archaic noun.


----------



## wilder0511

I am new to this forum, and came here having hope of finding a definitive answer to this question. It seems that whatever the origin of this phrase, people have made it their own, and either subscribe to the think camp or the thing camp. There are several valid points for each. The more I have read, the more I believe it probably did originate as think. However, thing seems to have been used widely enough, and long enough, that it should also be recognised as a common phrase that, no matter what the origin, is also meaningful.

I, however, was raised hearing you've got another thing coming, and don't plan on changing the phrase to appease anyone. I do not believe, as one person suggested, that it has anything to do with Judas Priest, my parents are each 70+ and have never listened to heavy metal, and contrary to another persons statement, English is their first language, as it was their parents, so that theory is not valid in this case either.

The word "thing" does sound more threatening to me than "think". If my parents had put on their best menacing face and said "you've got another think coming" I doubt it would have had the same effect.


----------



## the-pessimist

I fully agree wilder0511.  It seems that so many people cannot comprehend, i.e. people initially replying to my post - _why_ 'thing' _does_ make sense.  I have never doubted the validity of 'think' (as being correct and/or being used), however, to me it makes perfect sense to use 'thing'.

I guess the overall conclusion should be, now, that there are simply two distinct phrases.  Phrases are created over time. As "to have another think coming" was formed at some point, I would suggest it is fair to say, "to have another thing coming" has now also muscled its way through to stand as a phrase in its own right.


----------



## Trapezium

That's odd, I always thought the saying was "think". E.g.,

"If you think I'm going out in this weather, you've got a whole 'nother think coming."

I.e., "if that's what you currently believe, you will soon be forced to re-evaluate your beliefs."

Is this just a mondegreen?


----------



## AWordLover

Hi,

Trapezium, I think you are thinking of a related, but distinct, idiom.

Example: If you think I believe that drivel, you *have another think* coming.

This has the meaning you suggest. I like the word mondegreen (now that I've looked it up in the dictionary).


----------



## Trapezium

It is a great word, isn't it? 

But don't you think that in the original post:

_They *think *I'm chanting, they have a whole 'nother *thing *coming._

it actually should be the "think" idiom?


----------



## mplsray

Trapezium said:


> It is a great word, isn't it?
> 
> But don't you think that in the original post:
> 
> _They *think *I'm chanting, they have a whole 'nother *thing *coming._
> 
> it actually should be the "think" idiom?


 
The _thing_ version of the _think_ idiom has been around for a very long time. I learned the _thing_ version when I was a child, and if I heard the _think_ version, I expect I interpreted it as the _thing_ version until I got into high school. A typical example is, _If you *think* that, you've got another *thing* coming._

Something like that still occurs. I recently saw a British comedy--I believe it was _Are You Being Served_ and the speaker was Captain Peacock
--in which the speaker said "If you *think* that, you've got another *think* coming," but the person responsible for the closed captioning wrote instead, "you've got another *thing* coming."

I agree that _They *think* I'm chanting, they have a whole 'nother *thing* coming_ is a version of the _thing_ version of the _think_ idiom. I disagree with the poster who implied that the _thing_ version is defective in some way, as he believes that _I could care less_ is defective. These are _idioms:_ They aren't amenable to logical analysis, but depend for their correctness entirely upon usage. (Consider _It's raining *cats and dogs*_ and _He's *head over heels* in love_ or even something as simple as _*dialing* a phone _used for a modern push-button phone.)


----------



## Fossilized

Well, all I can say here is that "another _think _coming" is the original version. That doesn't automatically make it more correct (well, okay, I personally believe that it makes it more correct, but semantic drift is semantic drift, yanno).

The same holds with "couldn't care less," among others.


----------



## liliput

Hi. I just wanted to stick my oar in too, and come down firmly on the "think" side of the argument:
"If you think this, then you've got another think (thought) coming." i.e. "You'll have to think again." This is logical.
I, too, have trouble understanding what the "thing" might be, where it might be coming from and what happened to the first "thing" that I apparently got. Whilst thought processes are clearly part of the expression, there is no mention of any "things" in the first part of the sentence. I haven't had one thing yet, so how can I have another one coming? On the other hand, I have had a think, and will probably continue having thinks.
If I heard anyone use "thing" in this expression (and I don't believe I ever have in the UK) it would sound faintly ridiculous to me, and I would assume they had made a mistake. I'm genuinely surprised to see so many people vehemently defending what appears to me to be nothing more than a widespread error.


----------



## mplsray

liliput said:


> Hi. I just wanted to stick my oar in too, and come down firmly on the "think" side of the argument:
> "If you think this, then you've got another think (thought) coming." i.e. "You'll have to think again." This is logical.
> I, too, have trouble understanding what the "thing" might be, where it might be coming from and what happened to the first "thing" that I apparently got. Whilst thought processes are clearly part of the expression, there is no mention of any "things" in the first part of the sentence. I haven't had one thing yet, so how can I have another one coming? On the other hand, I have had a think, and will probably continue having thinks.
> If I heard anyone use "thing" in this expression (and I don't believe I ever have in the UK) it would sound faintly ridiculous to me, and I would assume they had made a mistake. I'm genuinely surprised to see so many people vehemently defending what appears to me to be nothing more than a widespread error.


 
Every language, without exception, is chockful of errors which have become acceptable, including in standard speech and writing. Usage is king, as they say.


----------



## SwissPete

There is another interesting discussion on the same subject at http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=541339.


----------



## SwissPete

Among its many definitions of “think”, wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn offers: _an instance of deliberate thinking; "I need to give it a good think"._ It was news to me that “think” can be a noun (but I am always happy to learn something new). 

That does not convince me that “you have another think coming” is correct. I always understood the expression to be “you have another *thing* coming”, the “thing” being a surprise. “If you expect me to agree with you, you have a surprise coming”.

So I will continue to use “thing”, but I will keep my comments to myself when I hear “think”. 

By the way, isn’t there a facility on this forum to take a poll? Wouldn’t this be a great subject?


----------



## nichec

Another vote for "thing".

--You've got another thing coming.
= Dream on! (at least to me)


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

Clearly, when an expression begins "_If you *think* XYZ_...", then the only sensible follow-up is "... _you have another *think* coming_."

On the other hand, "_another _*thing *_coming"_ can be correct -- but only in an entirely unrelated context:
_I have my daughter's wedding in June, and my sister's baby will be born in August, and another thing coming in September when my son goes off to college._

The problem to me seems to be that some people change the word "think" for another form of the verb, and then get lost in the alteration:
_If that is what you thought, then you have another_... What? _*Thought *coming_? But that does not sound like what we know. _*Think *coming_? But that does not sound like "thought". The solution is to make it "_*thing* coming_", which does not sound like "thought", but since it is clearly a different word, the lack of similarity does not matter.

This does not make it sensible, of course -- I would say "_another thing coming_" in that context is as meaningless and stupid as the equally foolish and sloppy mangling "_I could care less_".


----------



## mplsray

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> Clearly, when an expression begins "_If you *think* XYZ_...", then the only sensible follow-up is "... _you have another *think* coming_."
> 
> On the other hand, "_another _*thing *_coming"_ can be correct -- but only in an entirely unrelated context:
> _I have my daughter's wedding in June, and my sister's baby will be born in August, and another thing coming in September when my son goes off to college._
> 
> The problem to me seems to be that some people change the word "think" for another form of the verb, and then get lost in the alteration:
> _If that is what you thought, then you have another_... What? _*Thought *coming_? But that does not sound like what we know. _*Think *coming_? But that does not sound like "thought". The solution is to make it "_*thing* coming_", which does not sound like "thought", but since it is clearly a different word, the lack of similarity does not matter.
> 
> This does not make it sensible, of course -- I would say "_another thing coming_" in that context is as meaningless and stupid as the equally foolish and sloppy mangling "_I could care less_".


 
These are all idioms. It is a fallacy to dismiss a given idiom on logical grounds, because by definition an idiom is an expression whose meaning cannot be determined through logical analysis of the component parts. _I couldn't care less_ is no more logical than _I could care less,_ because both carry no more subtle meaning than "I don't care." The same is true of _If you *think* X you've got another *think/thing* coming_ Both mean nothing more than "You're wrong to think that."

Arguing that an idiom means something other than what usage indicates it means is pointless handwaving.


----------



## fenixpollo

Thanks for the perspective, Ray. Now that time has passed since this thread was started, I regret being so polemical at the start.  I realized that both _think_ and _thing_ are correct in this expression.

In addition, I think that it all comes down to linguistics.  (Linguists, correct me if I get my terms confused in describing the following linguistic phenomenon...) In both _think coming_ and _thing coming_, there is a palatized /n/ followed by a /k/, so in pronunciation, they sound identical.  So when nichec says "another thing coming" and lilliput says "another think coming", the phrases sound identical.

And in the end, they are identical.


----------



## liliput

SwissPete said:


> Among its many definitions of “think”, wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn offers: _an instance of deliberate thinking; "I need to give it a good think"._ It was news to me that “think” can be a noun (but I am always happy to learn something new).
> 
> That does not convince me that “you have another think coming” is correct. I always understood the expression to be “you have another *thing* coming”, the “thing” being a surprise. “If you expect me to agree with you, you have a surprise coming”.
> 
> So I will continue to use “thing”, but I will keep my comments to myself when I hear “think”.
> 
> By the way, isn’t there a facility on this forum to take a poll? Wouldn’t this be a great subject?


 
I've had a think about this. Your explanation fails to take into account the use of "*another*". I've got *another* surprise coming? That doesn't make sense because I wasn't surprised to begin with.



> These are all idioms. It is a fallacy to dismiss a given idiom on logical grounds, because by definition an idiom is an expression whose meaning cannot be determined through logical analysis of the component parts. _I couldn't care less_ is no more logical than _I could care less,_ because both carry no more subtle meaning than "I don't care." The same is true of _If you *think* X you've got another *think/thing* coming_ Both mean nothing more than "You're wrong to think that."
> 
> Arguing that an idiom means something other than what usage indicates it means is pointless handwaving.


 
I disagree mplspray. Just because the meaning of an idiom cannot be defined by looking at it's individual parts doesn't mean there is no logic in the construction.
"I couldn't care less" is logical - "I care so little that it's not possible for me to care any less." "I could care less", logically, carries an opposite meaning. 
In the expression "another thing coming", "thing" can only be being referring to a think, so what's the point in using it?
By this definition of an idiom, "another think coming" is just an expression, not an idiom - it's meaning can be derived from its component parts - and the same applies to "I couldn't care less". "Another thing coming" is not an idiom either - it's a spelling error, apparently born out of ignorance of the existence of "think" as a noun.


----------



## mplsray

liliput said:


> I disagree mplspray. Just because the meaning of an idiom cannot be defined by looking at it's individual parts doesn't mean there is no logic in the construction.
> "I couldn't care less" is logical - "I care so little that it's not possible for me to care any less." "I could care less", logically, carries an opposite meaning.
> In the expression "another thing coming", "thing" can only be being referring to a think, so what's the point in using it?
> By this definition of an idiom, "another think coming" is just an expression, not an idiom - it's meaning can be derived from its component parts - and the same applies to "I couldn't care less". "Another thing coming" is not an idiom either - it's a spelling error, apparently born out of ignorance of the existence of "think" as a noun.


 
While I think you are quite wrong, I won't argue the matter further in this thread. I would like to point out, however, that it is most likely that _If you *think* that you've got *another thing* coming_ originated as an oral variant having nothing to do with how the idiom is spelled. The reason people used either version of the idiom is because when they were young they heard other people say it. That is, both versions of the idiom must be attributed to the result of _knowledge,_ not ignorance, just as a person is not properly accused of ignorance when he describes someone as being _as happy as a clam_ or as being _head over heels in love,_ although neither of those idioms holds up to logical scrutiny.


----------



## liliput

mplsray said:


> While I think you are quite wrong, I won't argue the matter further in this thread. I would like to point out, however, that it is most likely that _If you *think* that you've got *another thing* coming_ originated as an oral variant having nothing to do with how the idiom is spelled. The reason people used either version of the idiom is because when they were young they heard other people say it. That is, both versions of the idiom must be attributed to the result of _knowledge,_ not ignorance, just as a person is not properly accused of ignorance when he describes someone as being _as happy as a clam_ or as being _head over heels in love,_ although neither of those idioms holds up to logical scrutiny.


 
I understand that mplspray doesn't wish to continue the discussion, however I would like to respond.
I assume then, that we can say that the idiom "another thing coming" arose from a mishearing rather than a misspelling. Those who gained knowledge of this expression apparently did not have knowledge of it's origin or true meaning. I am not arguing that the expression is wrong, because apparently there are sufficient people using the expression for it to be considered common usage. To me, however, this form of the expression makes less sense than the original.

Lets see if these other idioms have some logical meaning; 
I'm afraid I was ignorant of the expression "happy as a clam" (which according to our definition _is_ an idiom) but having looked it up I find that it too has logic in it's construction:
*(as) happy as a clam* 
very happy. _I am happy as a clam living all by myself in this little house by the sea._
Etymology: based on the full form of the phrase _happy as a clam in mud at high tide_ (= a clam that cannot be dug up and eaten, which therefore could be considered happy)
(from the Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms).

The idiom "To fall head over heels", on the other hand, does defy logic - because the head is usually over the heels, it would make more sense as "heels over head".


----------



## Moogle

Sounds quite odd for me to hear "think" rather than "thing".

I don't understand how "think" can be coming. Isn't to "think" a verb? How does a verb come at you :S.


----------



## liliput

Moogle said:


> Sounds quite odd for me to hear "think" rather than "thing".
> 
> I don't understand how "think" can be coming. Isn't to "think" a verb? How does a verb come at you :S.


 
If you read the whole thread, you will find that various members have explained that "think" also exists as a noun.


----------



## David_Porta

If memory serves, I first encountered this phrase as a boy, in a Marvel comic written by Stan Lee, and it was written "you have another think coming." Maybe it was Ben Grimm, The Thing, from Yancy street, Hell's Kitchen, NYC.

The defenders of "thing" seem to invoke having HEARD it as "thing." But, as has been pointed out, "thing-coming" and "think-coming" are pronounced the same in conversation.

I daresay that to defend "thing" on the basis of how one has heard the phrase is akin to defending the spelling "use to" (as opposed to the correct spelling, "used to") because that is how it sounds. After all, "used to" is pronounced "yooce too"( or "use to"), and  to mis-spell it is a natural mistake, if one knows the phrase ONLY from having heard it.

There is nothing reliable about spelling what you heard (or what you THOUGHT you heard). I dunno how it is for folks in UK or Aussi-land, but I am in the good old USA, and the closed captions and DVD captions I have encountered all spell "victuals" as "vittles." The transcriber hears the sound, "vittles," and, being a barbarian, and ignorant, spells it as he heard it. I suppose he is unaware that "victuals" is NOT pronounced "vik tyoo ulz." ("Victuals" is pronounced "vittles," but is spelled "victuals." Except for every closed-caption and dvd-caption transcriber in America, who haven't a clue.)

"Think" is correct, and "thing" is a mis-spelling. "Used" is correct, and "use" is a mis-spelling. "Lie" means to recline, and "lay" means to put. Nearly everyone I know uses "lay" when they mean "lie." The world is going to Hell in a bucket, and the barbarians are at the gates. Heaven help us.

Some here have mentioned "I could care less." Well, "I couldn't care less" was once common, but I believe Hollywood writers and actors popularized "I could care less." What happened?  "I could care less" is associated in my mind with the New York accent of old Hell's Kitchen, where all the different immigrant groups mixed their language idiosyncrasies with each other. A Jew saying, "I could care less?" And an Italian (my less-educated Italo-American brethren, the ones with the broken noses), hearing that, dropping the question mark, but keeping the words, and the general meaning. (With a question mark, it makes sense. Sans that punctuation, it means the exact grammatical opposite of its intended meaning.)

But I digress. I discovered "you have another think coming" in a comic book. Full circle, the just released graphic novel, GOOD AS LILY, contains "you have another thing coming," which led me here.

The two links provided in this thread (to wsu.edu and to grammartips.homestead.com), and common sense, settle it for me. Think.


----------



## mplsray

David_Porta said:


> The defenders of "thing" seem to invoke having HEARD it as "thing." But, as has been pointed out, "thing-coming" and "think-coming" are pronounced the same in conversation.


 
It is not true that they are pronounced alike. I know this to be the case because when I was first convinced that one should use _think_ instead of _thing_ in the expression--I no longer hold that belief, obviously--I made a deliberate effort to change from saying _thing_ to _think._ There would have been no need to make an effort in changing my speech--rather than simply changing my spelling--if there had been no difference in pronunciation. 

Not only that, but I can hear the difference when spoken by others, and I am not the only one. When people write letters to the editor on the subject, or write to a columnist to complain about it, they usually complain about something they have heard rather than something they have read.


----------



## dadscalleddarth

This in an interesting discussion. I record audio books and have recorded over 150 novels to date. This phrase has been a source of discussion many times. Both phrases are used although I think that 'thing' is used more often in written form.

I see it like this:

If that's what you think, you've got another think coming
( you will have to think again )

If that's what you think, you've got another thing coming
( You think one thing, but another thing is coming )

Both make sense, although 'think' sounds strange as it is usually used as a verb

I favor 'thing' because the phrase is used in a threatening way. The way that someone thinks something will be, is not going to be that way - something else is coming  - " You've got a shock coming "

Using  ' think ' as ' thought ' suggests that there will be no shock, because you will think again and work out what the ' thing ' is that will happen

The phrase is almost always used in regard to the way something will be or something will happen. If a child said " I think that the world is flat " - the response " If you think that, you've got another think coming " would make sense, but would be inappropriate as it isn't used in that context.

some 'thing' that will happen is always the focus of the phrase. ' another thing ' meaning something different to what you think.

That's my opinion anyhow.


----------



## thewhiteraven

mplsray said:


> It is not true that they are pronounced alike. I know this to be the case because when I was first convinced that one should use _think_ instead of _thing_ in the expression--I no longer hold that belief, obviously--I made a deliberate effort to change from saying _thing_ to _think._ There would have been no need to make an effort in changing my speech--rather than simply changing my spelling--if there had been no difference in pronunciation.
> 
> Not only that, but I can hear the difference when spoken by others, and I am not the only one. When people write letters to the editor on the subject, or write to a columnist to complain about it, they usually complain about something they have heard rather than something they have read.



If you try saying it fast, at the speed of normal speech, the two sound nearly the same. If you're paying attention, you might find a difference but I couldnt... Not when other people use it or even when I use it.

In India, the phrase isn't very commonly used, but when it is, I've only heard "think". I think originally it must've been "think", because it makes more sense, at least to me. but for whatever reasons, "thing" has also come into use and as many people have pointed out, it also has a more threatening meaning than "think". So both phrases are legitimate...


----------



## Prairiefire

Believe it or not, my mother (US native, Pennsylvania) actually clarified this for me once, after she scolded me when I was a child. 

I must have been trying to decide whether I would obey or not, because I DID specifically ask her what the 'other thing coming' was.

That was when she clarified for me that she was not threatening me, that she was merely informing me that I had another THINK coming, if I was going to do whatever it was correctly.

Probably as a result, my ears have never since perceived anyone saying "...another thing coming."


----------



## Victoria32

liliput said:


> Hi. I just wanted to stick my oar in too, and come down firmly on the "think" side of the argument:
> "If you think this, then you've got another think (thought) coming." i.e. "You'll have to think again." This is logical.
> I, too, have trouble understanding what the "thing" might be, where it might be coming from and what happened to the first "thing" that I apparently got. Whilst thought processes are clearly part of the expression, there is no mention of any "things" in the first part of the sentence. I haven't had one thing yet, so how can I have another one coming? On the other hand, I have had a think, and will probably continue having thinks.
> If I heard anyone use "thing" in this expression (and I don't believe I ever have in the UK) it would sound faintly ridiculous to me, and I would assume they had made a mistake. I'm genuinely surprised to see so many people vehemently defending what appears to me to be nothing more than a widespread error.



Fascinating! My old Mum used to say "another think coming," and I just came across a woman saying "another thing" on another forum, so I googled and got this thread! I am fully in agreement with you, liliput. 

Vicky


----------



## Lexiphile

Like Liliput, I'm also genuinely surprised.  I'm surprised that we can get to 78 posts (now 79!) about... not a "widespread error," as Lili has it, but rather a widespread dichotomous usage.

As was mentioned very early on, the two words sound very similar, so it's quite likely that one usage developed out of the other.  The "thing" users have attached a perfectly acceptable meaning to their expression and the "thinkers" have done likewise.  It doesn't even make any real difference which one came first.

So there are now two very similary expressions to convey the same idea.  What's wrong with that?  I fall firmly in the "think" camp, though as a child I always understood "thing."  So what?  If we are prepared to accept literally hundreds (perhaps thousands) of linguistic constructions as "correct" even though they were (and by some people still are) seen to be grammatical errors, why can we not accept this tiny, insignificant phrase in either form?  

Come on, foreros, show a little tolerance here, too.


----------



## liliput

Lexiphile said:


> Like Liliput, I'm also genuinely surprised. I'm surprised that we can get to 78 posts (now 79!) about... not a "widespread error," as Lili has it, but rather a widespread dichotomous usage.
> 
> As was mentioned very early on, the two words sound very similar, so it's quite likely that one usage developed out of the other. *The "thing" users have attached a perfectly acceptable meaning to their expression* and the "thinkers" have done likewise. It doesn't even make any real difference which one came first.
> 
> So there are now two very similary expressions to convey the same idea. What's wrong with that? I fall firmly in the "think" camp, though as a child I always understood "thing." So what? If we are prepared to accept literally hundreds (perhaps thousands) of linguistic constructions as "correct" even though they were (and by some people still are) seen to be grammatical errors, why can we not accept this tiny, insignificant phrase in either form?
> 
> Come on, foreros, show a little tolerance here, too.


 
Out of interest, which explanation of the meaning of "thing" in this expression did you find perfectly acceptable? Perhaps I missed one.


----------



## Lexiphile

'Twas the expression, not the word, that is acceptable.  Browsing quickly backwards, I stumble first upon post #75, wherein the expression is explained.  The "thing," judging by the general tone of its supporters' posts, is some nebulous "boogey man" -- anything that can be threatened -- but since it is quite clearly NOT explicit in the expression, you won't find a "definition" for it.  Unlike "think," which is explicit.


----------



## Rana_pipiens

fenixpollo said:


> ... this expression ... which is used throughout the Western U.S. and by everyone I know ...


 
Not throughout the western U.S.  Some parts of it perhaps.  I grew up being threatened with "another think coming" in response to opinions and conclusions my parents considered unacceptable, rather than to anything I was doing.

I've heard "another thing coming," and have taken it as someone having misheard the original and adopted the saying as a set phrase, having a meaning ("you'd better reconsider") when taken as a whole, despite not making a lot of sense if considered literally.  *Another* thing coming?  What thing has already come?  It reminds me of the old joke, "'Would ya like some molasses?'  'How kin I have some *mo'* 'lasses when I ain't had *no* 'lasses at all?'"  (To explain this to non-native speakers -- the joke is in the southern AE accent.  *More* is said without the R, and the first syllable in *molasses* is a long O.  Thus *molasses* and *more lasses* sound the same.  *Ya* and *kin* are phonetic spellings of the southern pronunciation of *you* and *can*.)

But that's the way language evolves.  If *thing* makes sense to the people who use it, that's all that's required.


----------



## mplsray

Brioche said:


> "think" phonetically is /thingk/, if followed by _come_, you need two /k/ sounds  /thingk-kumming/.
> If you don't clearly enunciate, it becomes /thingkumming/ and thus _thing coming._
> 
> Sorry, but my poor little Aussie brain can't see any sense in _thing _in the main clause and _think_ in the subordinate clause.



I made the point earlier in this thread that both "If you think X, you've got another think coming" and "If you think X, you've got another thing coming" are both idioms which have the same meaning, namely, "if you think X, you're wrong."

Because of the recent revival of the thread, I started to look at various dictionaries online to see if they treated these expressions as idioms as well. I found several examples where the "think" version was given as a subentry, but unfortunately, those dictionaries did not explicitly use the usage label "idiom," so I can't say for certain that the editors intended those subentries to represent idioms.

However, I did find both the "think" and "thing" versions identified as idioms--or rather, as two versions of the very same idiom--in the following entry from the Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms:

*"If sb thinks sth, they've got another thing/think coming! informal*

"something that you say when you are angry with someone because they are expecting you to do something for them that you do not want to do" 

The example sentence uses the "think" version. The meaning discussed is not precisely the same meaning that I had in mind ("You're wrong"), but I agree that the idiom can have the meaning identified by the dictionary and I agree that all versions of the idiom belong to the informal register.

The important thing is that (1) the "think" version is identified as an idiom--that is, its meaning cannot be derived through an analysis of its component parts--and (2) the "thing" version is interchangeable with the "think" version. (Presumably, the editors listed "thing" before "think" because they used alphabetical order in listing variants.)

In other words, that dictionary entry backs up what some of us who do not consider the "thing" version to be an error have been saying.


----------



## Harry Batt

When faced with a serious grammatical question, I run down to the pool hall where the "laughing stock rule" applies to American speech. Just at the time Nuts Nelson is shooting the last ball on the table, the 8-ball to win, I say, "Make it Nuts or you'll have another think coming." Everyone standing around the table chalking up their cues begins laughing, Nuts scratches on the eight ball. "I'm sorry, Nuts. I meant to say, 'you'll have another thing coming.' "


----------



## liliput

Lexiphile said:


> 'Twas the expression, not the word, that is acceptable. Browsing quickly backwards, I stumble first upon post #75, wherein the expression is explained. The "thing," judging by the general tone of its supporters' posts, is some nebulous "boogey man" -- anything that can be threatened -- but since it is quite clearly NOT explicit in the expression, you won't find a "definition" for it. Unlike "think," which is explicit.


 
But this doesn't explain how it comes to be "another" thing.



> The important thing is that (1) the "think" version is identified as an idiom--that is, its meaning cannot be derived through an analysis of its component parts


 
This is one definition of idiom. Another is simply "a form of expression natural to a language, person or group". I would argue that one can quite easily derive the meaning of this expression through analysis - as long as you use "think". If you use "thing" then a simple analysis doesn't suffice.


----------



## fenixpollo

liliput said:


> But this doesn't explain how it comes to be "another" thing.


It's true the "thing coming" version of the expression doesn't explain what the first "thing" was. I think it leaves it up to the imagination of the person who has something coming to them.  





fenixpollo said:


> "You've Got Another Thing Coming": The lyrics don't suggest what the thing is.  One could only imagine what "the Metal Gods" might have in store as a punishment for someone who disagreed with them enough to make them angry.  This is the idea behind the expression, which suggests that the thing in question is retribution for having wronged the speaker.
> 
> If the person talking is a mother, then the _thing_ that is coming may be a scolding or a spanking.  The _thing_ could also be a piece of someone's mind or a good talking to.





Rana_pipiens said:


> Not throughout the western U.S.  Some parts of it perhaps.  I grew up being threatened with "another think coming" in response to opinions and conclusions my parents considered unacceptable, rather than to anything I was doing.


 "Throughout", to me, implies that it is used all over the geographic region. It does not imply that it is used exclusively by everyone in the region. I have friends and acquaintances from the four corners of the West, and all of them subscribe to the "thing" school. However, due to the large number of immigrants in the West from other parts of the country and from other countries, I would expect that the "think" version would be used, too.


----------



## Rana_pipiens

In addition to the aforementioned Cambridge definition, "annoyance at the listener's expecting the speaker to do something," the expression is also used for an intended action or inaction of the listener's, as in, "If you think you are going to go to school wearing that outfit ...."



fenixpollo said:


> ... due to the large number of immigrants in the West from other parts of the country and from other countries, I would expect that the "think" version would be used, too.


 
On the one hand, the family, neighbors etc. that I learned *think* from were descendents of early settlers of the West, _not_ recent immigrants. On the other hand, doing a quick tabulation from this thread of *thing/think* adherents by country (where given), and, lumping the Commonwealth countries and India together as BE (being more closely related to BE than AE), *thing* is 12 AE:7 BE; *think* is 6 AE:15 BE. Linguists have observed there is a pocket in the Utah/Idaho area of grammar and idioms that evolved in BE after the split from AE, due to English immigration during the mid-1800s. Thus the Intermountain West dialect might use *think* due to 150-year-old BE influence.

The OED's first print citations are earlier for *thing* (1919) than for *think* (1937); however, idioms are often in widespread verbal use long before ever appearing in print.  I suspect the *think* version was the original, regularized into *thing* since *think* is not usually a noun. 

While personally preferring the wordplay of *another think*, I understand how the promise of a nebulous *another thing coming* would be effective -- it makes quite as much sense (which is to say, not much ) as the highly ominous, "One ... two ...." of my early childhood, which usually extorted tearful compliance by the count of "three."


----------



## Cagey

Rana_pipiens said:


> The OED's first print citations are earlier for *thing* (1919) than for *think* (1937); however, idioms are often in widespread verbal use long before ever appearing in print.  I suspect the *think* version was the original, regularized into *thing* since *think* is not usually a noun.
> 
> While personally preferring the wordplay of *another think*, I understand how the promise of a nebulous *another thing coming* would be effective -- it makes quite as much sense (which is to say, not much ) as the highly ominous, "One ... two ...." of my early childhood, which usually extorted tearful compliance by the count of "three."



On Google books, the earliest incident of "another _think_ coming" is 1873.  Certainly it was in spoken language before that. 

"You think I ought to thank you for butting in and keeping me from dying without knowing anything about it, don't you? Well, *you got another think coming*." ... from the American _Publishers Weekly_ - 1873​
In the same source, the earliest hits for "got another _thing_ coming" are in the 1960s, later than the OED citations. 

It's on the basis of its word play that I believe the "think coming" version was first.  It seems to me that sayings of this sort are built around and even motivated by catchy word play and rhymes.


----------



## mplsray

liliput said:


> But this doesn't explain how it comes to be "another" thing.
> 
> 
> 
> This is one definition of idiom. Another is simply "a form of expression natural to a language, person or group". I would argue that one can quite easily derive the meaning of this expression through analysis - as long as you use "think". If you use "thing" then a simple analysis doesn't suffice.


 
I finally had an opportunity to browse through the Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms. I thought you might have in mind the sort of idiom in which in French one must say "Je suis né à Paris" (literally, "I am born in Paris") while in English one must say "I was born in Paris." Another example is "Je me lave les mains" (literally, "I me wash the hands") while in English one says "I wash my hands." So I wanted to check if the Cambridge idiom dictionary entry included the latter type of idiom, which I would expect to find treated as part of the basic grammar rather than in collections of idioms of the sort I had in mind.

I am now satisfied that the Cambridge idiom dictionary covers only the unanalyzable type of idiom (with the possible exception of its entries for metaphors and similes). It subsequently occurred to me, reading the mention of "person" in your definition of idiom, that this was a very much weaker sense of the word which is, really, not relevant to the discussion because it covers both analyzable and unanalyzable forms--whatever the person, or group, says that another person or group would tend not to say.

One thing the Cambridge dictionary reminded me was that idioms appear in specific places and for a particular use. The example given was "to look daggers at someone" compared with "to look angrily at someone." Some posters in this thread have tried to tweeze a difference in meaning out of both variants of the "thing/think" idiom, but this is a pointless exercise because they are both used in exactly the same way to serve exactly the same function.

I did find out something else interesting about the "thing/think" idiom: The Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms will give a variant using a slash (as in "thing/think") only if both variants are common to all branches of English; otherwise it gives a separate entry for each idiom. As a result, we know that the editors of the idiom dictionary consider both variants to be used throughout the English-speaking world.


----------



## Brian Nelson

I'm speaking here on a historical basis, not as an argument on the rightness or wrongness of either option. My mother, who was born in 1915, used the expression as "You have another thing coming" when I was a boy. She derived many colorful expressions from her Iowa-born father and her mother, whose ancestors came from Appalachia. That probably takes the origins of this version of the term back into the 19th century, as Grandpa was born in 1880 and Grandma in 1883. 

My reaction to the "another think" version, which I may have first heard early on, was that it was a clever play on the "thing" version -- perhaps something that Popeye might say. (Perhaps it was.) But I remember using it for comic effect as a variation of "thing."

Brian Nelson


----------



## JamesM

My father was born in 1915 and my mother in 1918. They both said, "...another think coming." My father's family was from England, my mother's from West Virginia.  I don't think anyone's personal experience will validate a prior claim to the history of the phrase.


----------



## anothersmith

My first reaction upon reading this thread was:  "Of course it's _thing_ -- that's what my mother always said."   Then I remembered that my mother is famous for malaprops.  (My favorite:  "I've been working like a dervish all day.")

Still, the use of "think" as a noun grates on me.  I don't think I've ever heard it used as a noun before.  It's certainly not common in the U.S.   Is it common elsewhere in the English speaking world (apart from the saying at issue here)?


----------



## JamesM

anothersmith said:


> My first reaction upon reading this thread was: "Of course it's _thing_ -- that's what my mother always said." Then I remembered that my mother is famous for malaprops. (My favorite: "I've been working like a dervish all day.")
> 
> Still, the use of "think" as a noun grates on me. I don't think I've ever heard it used as a noun before. It's certainly not common in the U.S. Is it common elsewhere in the English speaking world (apart from the saying at issue here)?


 
As burdensome as it is, anothersmith, it's worth reading the entire thread to see that both versions appear to be common throughout the English-speaking world, and both camps are fairly certain that the other is wrong.  

As for "think" being a noun, it's a colloquialism, as in: "I'm going to sit myself down and have a good think about this."


----------



## anothersmith

JamesM said:


> As burdensome as it is, anothersmith, it's worth reading the entire thread to see that both versions appear to be common throughout the English-speaking world, and both camps are fairly certain that the other is wrong.



I have read the entire thread, James.  That's why I included the parenthetical "(apart from the saying at issue here)."

What I'm wondering is whether people in other countries say, for example, "I'm going to have to have a think about that."  I was surprised to hear that "think" appears in the dictionary as a noun.

Edit:  If you want me to start a separate thread about this, please let me know.


----------



## LouisaB

anothersmith said:


> What I'm wondering is whether people in other countries say, for example, "I'm going to have to have a think about that." I was surprised to hear that "think" appears in the dictionary as a noun.


 
Many people in the UK also use 'think' as a noun (as noted by Aupick in post # 32). The phrase 'I'll have a think' is (in my experience) common, but I've also heard it used with the same faintly admonishing tone of 'you've got another think coming', as in:

'Your father worked all week to pay for that window you've just broken. You *might want to have a think about that* next time you play football in the house'

It's also used in the specific phrase 'another think' - as in *'Have another think'* instead of 'Think again'. I've even heard this on quiz shows, so it must be fairly widely understood 

However, I don't think I've ever come across any of these phrases in a formal setting - they're purely colloquialisms.


----------



## Cathy Rose

liliput said:


> Out of interest, which explanation of the meaning of "thing" in this expression did you find perfectly acceptable? Perhaps I missed one.



It was the one that said,
You think one _thing_, but you're going to have to think another _thing_. To me, it sounds less awkward than using _think_ as a noun.  (Yes, yes, I know it CAN be a noun.  I just think it sounds silly.  But maybe I have another think/thing coming.


----------



## Roxie_Blackwell

Both are usually accepted as correct, although I'm almost certain "you've got another think coming" is the original.

_"The phrase "You've got another thing coming" is an eggcorn of "You've got another think coming"."_
That's straight from wikipedia.org, and wiktionary.org categorizes "you've got another thing coming" as an alternative form of "you've got another think coming", and also mentions that 'thing' is what is mainly used in the U.S.

So, I'm pretty sure this all just boils down to preference/what you grew up with.

Personally I use "you've got another thing coming."


----------



## David_Porta

RB says "usually accepted." By who?

RB further cites Wiktionary as saying "what is mainly used in the U.S." but Wictionary is hardly an authoritative source. I expect it ranks on the same level as these boards.

It is "think."

The idiosyncratic substitution of "thing" for "think" just because "thing" sounds, to the speaker's ear, like "think," introduces a meaning that is different from the original, but plausible in the same context.


----------



## mplsray

David_Porta said:


> RB says "usually accepted." By who?
> 
> RB further cites Wiktionary as saying "what is mainly used in the U.S." but Wictionary is hardly an authoritative source. I expect it ranks on the same level as these boards.
> 
> It is "think."
> 
> The idiosyncratic substitution of "thing" for "think" just because "thing" sounds, to the speaker's ear, like "think," introduces a meaning that is different from the original, but plausible in the same context.



I disagree that the meaning is different.

The Oxford English Dictionary is not a place to turn to to identify whether a usage is standard or not, since it is a historical dictionary and its editors do not see the identification of a term as being standard or not to be among its purposes (that sort of thing is dealt with in other dictionaries by the Oxford University Press). However, I do think we can count on it to accurately reflect the _meaning_ of a word or expression, and under the entry for the noun _think_, in the draft revision of September 2009, the OED has a subentry for "to have another thing coming" (subentry P16.). In that subentry, "to have another thing coming" is identified as equivalent to "to have another think coming." To be precise, it introduces the relationship between the two with an equal sign <=>.

I would note that under its entry for the verb _care_ it similarly expressly identifies "could care less" with "couldn't care less," again, using the equal sign. There is no difference in meaning whatsoever between those two expressions, so I think we can be assured that when the OED is uses the equal sign for the _thing/think_ variants, it is identifying them as equal in sense.

(Note that my intention in the previous paragraph is _not_ to start a discussion about _couldn't care less_ versus _could care less,_ but only to illustrate how the equal sign is used when comparing meanings in the OED. If I could have thought of another example of the equivalence of two expressions, I would have used that instead of the _couldn't care less/could care less_ example. I would be pleased to hear of other examples from the Oxford English Dictionary which illustrate that point.)


----------



## prof2

Having been a language teacher for nearly 30 years, I can, without ANY doubt, unequivocably, and absolutely certainly assure you that the correct term is "you've got another THINK coming, " not "thing!". The "thing" version makes absolutely no sense grammatically.  In fact, I will even be bold enough to say that anyone who argues for the "thing" version being correct is, simply put, rather ignorant !


----------



## mplsray

prof2 said:


> Having been a language teacher for nearly 30 years, I can, without ANY doubt, unequivocably, and absolutely certainly assure you that the correct term is "you've got another THINK coming, " not "thing!". The "thing" version makes absolutely no sense grammatically.  In fact, I will even be bold enough to say that anyone who argues for the "thing" version being correct is, simply put, rather ignorant !



This sort of boldness is not something to be proud of.


----------



## Mezzofanti

Here's my vote : the "think" version is original and logical and the only version I have ever consciously heard.  However, it appears that owing to dialect pronunciations it has sometimes been heard as "thing" and repeated so that this version has become in some places or social milieux too established to be called "wrong". But among well-educated native speakers of standard British English (what the BBC used until a few years ago) it is still wrong.

The proof that "think" is the original version is found in the fact that the expression is never used unless the word "think" has already occurred earlier in the sentence ("If you think that...")  No synonym will do.

BTW Google hits :

"You've got another think coming" = 325000
"You've got another thing coming" = 41200
"You've got another thing coming" -Judas = 24800

The thinks have it !


----------



## Loob

prof2 said:


> Having been a language teacher for nearly 30 years, I can, without ANY doubt, unequivocably, and absolutely certainly assure you that the correct term is "you've got another THINK coming, " not "thing!". The "thing" version makes absolutely no sense grammatically. In fact, I will even be bold enough to say that anyone who argues for the "thing" version being correct is, simply put, rather ignorant !


That'd be "unequivocally", right?


----------



## ewie

> Join Date: Jun 2010
> Native language: english-american
> Posts: 1


I'm sure you're a lot more careful with capitalization when you're teaching, Prof2
Welcome to Pedants R Us We Are Pedants.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Loob

Blimey, sumfink else wo' uh fing abow inni'.

It looks like a fun summer ahead.

 Hermione


----------



## prof2

Mplsray: I certainly am not ashamed of my boldness in correcting something that is as blatantly wrong as "thing" in this case. Am I perfect?  Obviously not!  Is that an excuse for letting it slide by?  Absolutely not!  So I shall continue to be this bold.


----------



## Bevj

Mezzofanti said:


> Here's my vote : the "think" version is original and logical and the only version I have ever consciously heard.  However, it appears that owing to dialect pronunciations it has sometimes been heard as "thing" and repeated so that this version has become in some places or social milieux too established to be called "wrong". But among well-educated native speakers of standard British English (what the BBC used until a few years ago) it is still wrong.
> 
> The proof that "think" is the original version is found in the fact that the expression is never used unless the word "think" has already occurred earlier in the sentence ("If you think that...")  No synonym will do.



I must admit that I've never paused to consider this phrase; for as long as I can remember, I, my parents and grandparents and everyone I know have said 'another *thing* coming' 
However, I must admit that your argument is totally compelling, and also I found this reference so I have to bow to the inevitable.

(but I'm not going to stop saying _thing_)


----------



## bluegiraffe

prof2 said:


> Having been a language teacher for nearly 30 years, I can, without ANY doubt, unequivocably, and absolutely certainly assure you that the correct term is "you've got another THINK coming, " not "thing!". The "thing" version makes absolutely no sense grammatically. In fact, I will even be bold enough to say that anyone who argues for the "thing" version being correct is, simply put, rather ignorant !


I just love it when people pole up calling others ignorant, so I'm now desperately trying to think of a good argument for "thing". My mum always said "another thing coming" when I was a child, but, having embarked on reading this thread, it suddenly occured to me that it probably was "think" rather than "thing (I have to say I have never really thought about it before", but now I've read this arrogant little post (and you can forget about posting your opinions all those veteran Word Reference members who are also English teachers/linguists/grammarians and have been for many years, this guy is right!) I'm arguing for THING. You've got another thing coming if you think I'm ignorant.

So there. ;0)


----------



## prof2

My apologies to anyone who was offended by my stated "boldness" on this topic. Such was not my intention.  In the future, I shall refrain from expressing my opinion on such matters.  Again, my apologies.


----------



## JamesM

prof2 said:


> My apologies to anyone who was offended by my stated "boldness" on this topic. Such was not my intention. In the future, I shall refrain from expressing my opinion on such matters. Again, my apologies.


 
Personal opinions about the phrase are welcome here, as long as they are acknowledged to be opinions.  Opinions about the relative ignorance of those who have a differing opinion are not.


----------



## mancunienne girl

This thread is really interesting, because I've only ever heard people use Fenixpollo's "you have another thing coming". The "thing" in question is something of a threatening nature that may happen to you if you insist on thinking that way.....
As far as I know "think" is not a noun in the formal sense, but only used informally, to mean "a period of thinking". This would then make the sentence mean "if you think that, you have another period of thinking coming to you", or "if you think that, you can think again".

Perhaps both are valid? Language is so confusing!


----------



## prof2

JamesM:  I can do no more than--again--express my apologies for the offense. I do not know what else to do.


----------



## ewie

Just _in case_ anyone's interested, I've always been a _thing_er rather than a _think_er.

(I should probably rephrase that ...)


----------



## prof2

Ewie... I appreciate a good sense of humor, and that's a good one.


----------



## problem causer

prof2 said:
			
		

> Having been a language teacher for nearly 30 years, I can, without ANY  doubt, unequivocably, and absolutely certainly assure you that the  correct term is "you've got another THINK coming, " not "thing!". The  "thing" version makes absolutely no sense grammatically.  In fact, I  will even be bold enough to say that anyone who argues for the "thing"  version being correct is, simply put, rather ignorant !



Hilarious since "think" is definitely not grammatically correct (it should be "you have another THOUGHT coming") and "thing" actually IS both logically sensible and grammatically correct... or were you never informed that thoughts are things, professor?

By the way, I must say, I'm a thinger, too, but the more I think about it, that Judas Priest song might sound even more badass had they used "think." Rob Halford could have sang that bit with emphasis that would actually sound extra tough: "you've got a nother think coming." Sing it in your head. The emphasis sounds extra tough when you split the words "think" and "coming," no? Almost like he's spitting at you or there's an exasperated breathy sound to it.


----------



## panjandrum

You have a choice.
You can have the grammatically dubious, but semantically valid, "think" version.
Or you can have the grammatically correct, but semantically flawed, "thing" version.
As it is a colloquial expression, and the one I was brought up with, I opt consistently for "think".
However, I have become a lot more tolerant since arriving in this forum and it is quite some time since last I burnt a "thing"er at the stake.


----------



## Loob

_Grammatically dubious,_ panj? OED's first citation for "think" as a noun dates from 1834. And I, personally, often sit and have a drink ooops think.

Tolerance? Bah. Hang, draw and quarter the "thingers", say I. Unless they're nice to me and say I'm pretty, of course.


----------



## preppie

I'm afraid I have to vote for "think".  It may be semantically incorrect (to some).. but it's the only logical choice as the phrase is: "If you think you are (blah blah blah) then you have another 'think' coming."  

Why would I have another 'thing' coming ?  What 'thing' ?  

The fact that many say "thing" does not make it the correct phrase, it makes it an incorrect phrase that many people use.

it really boils down to:  You thought 'x'.  What you thought was incorrect and you need to rethink it and come up with something different.

The language is abused and tortured daily.  Eventually, perhaps, it will give in.  Then the pundits amongus will go back searching for the root of the evil and find the culprit who made the mistake in the first place.

If you think I'm wrong.. you've another 'think' coming.


----------



## ewie

preppie said:


> Then the pundits amongus will go back searching for the root of the evil and find the culprit who made the mistake in the first place.


Well, good luck with _that_, Preppie


----------



## margiemarz

It's _think_ in most of the USA.  I _think_ that _thing_ is merely a misstatement of the original by someone who didn't hear the "K."


----------



## JamesM

margiemarz said:


> It's _think_ in most of the USA. I _think_ that _thing_ is merely a misstatement of the original by someone who didn't hear the "K."


 
<_moderator note:  Please review the entire thread.  Many people in the USA subscribe to "think" and many subscribe to "thing".  If there is one thing that this thread has pointed out, it is that there are significant numbers of people who use either variant and are sure it is the only correct version.  >_


----------



## prof2

Yes, well, while it may be true that many people think "thing" is correct in this saying, that does not make it the right version.  Numbers do not create accuracy.  The fact remains, regardless of how many people say it as "thing," the only truly correct term is "think.". Sorry, but that is just a fact.


----------



## JamesM

And you base this fact on... ?  This sounds like opinion, prof2.  "Because I've always heard/said it that way" does not represent a statistically significant sample of the population.


----------



## prof2

Ummmm, you might want to look it up (as I have). In several reputable sources, both on the internet and in books about the English language, not to mention with several professors of the English language. So, no, it is NOT just a matter of opinion, sir!  I think it is unfortunate that we look to a band such as Judas Priest for the "correctness" of such a thing and then say that it makes it correct because a significant number of people say it that way.  Many people say that "alot" is one word; so now are we going to declare that correct as well, simply because it is widely used that way?  Again, numbers of people do not ensure accuracy.


----------



## JamesM

No, numbers do not, but neither does "I'm absolutely sure I'm right" make it right.

You're welcome to provide sources.  Otherwise, it is just opinion, prof2.


----------



## Lexiphile

While I remain firmly in the "think" camp (and not just to avoid being hanged, drawn and quartered despite failing to make perhaps unwarranted observations about Loob's appearance), there is the possibility that, contrary to to Margiemarz's suggestion, the word was originally "thing" but an English regional accent added the "k."

Consider, for comparison, the sentence "I don' know nuffink."


----------



## Cagey

But then why would you say it at all?  And why would it get passed on and survive? If you think that you've got another thing coming.​Where's the pep?  Where's the verve? Where is the rhyme or word-play that is usual in folk-sayings and makes them worth remembering and repeating?

It is not very interesting and it doesn't even make sense.  Where was the first thing, to make this another thing? 

(In my opinion. )


----------



## prof2

JamesM, oh, I can provide sources...can YOU?  You are welcome to provide sources for your contention that it is "thing"...otherwise, it is just your opinion.  May I ask why you so firmly want to cling to the "thing" hypothesis?


----------



## Loob

prof2 said:


> JamesM, oh, I can provide sources...can YOU? You are welcome to provide sources for your contention that it is "thing"...otherwise, it is just your opinion. May I ask why you so firmly want to cling to the "thing" hypothesis?


Prof2, I think you are missing the point. If James says "thing", then that's what he says; if you say "think", then that's what you say. End of subject.
Language is usage.

*EDIT: I've just re-read the thread and noticed James comes from a long line of _think'ers_


----------



## prof2

So, let me get this straight then.... Basically, you are saying, "Let's let accuracy and correctness of the language hang! ".  I SEE!  Well, ok, then, I guess I will today and tell my students that correctness no longer matters; if they SAY it in whatever way, then that makes it all just fine. I am sure they will just love that!  Hmmmmm...should make my life easier, too: no more grading papers because whatever they say is correct!  Now I get your "point!"


----------



## panjandrum

prof2 said:


> ...
> May I ask why you so firmly want to cling to the "thing" hypothesis?


To a significant degree, thingists cling to thingism because they know how much their thingism offends fundamentalist thinkists.  The more irate the fundamentalist thinkist becomes, not least because there is no irrefutable proof of thinkism, the more frivolously thingist become the thingists.


----------



## Brioche

This is thread that needs putting to bed.


----------



## JazzByChas

Although the colloquial use of the work 'think' in the phrase, '...you've got another think coming..." is understandable, the only thing(k) I don't understand is that if you say "... you've got another _think _coming..." This makes "think" a noun. I thought the noun was "thought"

Just my thoughts on the matter.


----------



## Lexiphile

JazzByChas said:


> This makes "think" a noun. I thought the noun was "thought".


 
So did I, but then I had a thought:  if I say, "let me have a thought about it," it sound odd.  So I say, "let me have a think about it."  So it can be a noun after all.

Somehow, for reasons I cannot explain (though no doubt Prof2 can), "think" as a noun seems to have a tense.  "Thought" when it has already occurred, "Think" when it has yet to happen.

And I still remain a radical thinkist, in the Panj-sense.


----------



## piney

> Originally Posted by fenixpollo
> [...] Until someone proves that the version with "think" is somehow better, more original or more logical, I don't stand corrected.



Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary has an entry on this matter.

*Think*
noun
[ singular ]
have a ˈthink (about sth) ( informal ) to think carefully about sth in order to make a decision about it
I'll have a think and let you know tomorrow.
you've got another think ˈcoming ( informal ) used to tell sb that they are wrong about sth and must change their plans or opinions
If you think I'm going to pay all your bills you've got another think coming.
© Oxford University Press, 2010


----------



## ewie

Though a lifelong thinger (or 'thingist' to use the new-fangled terminology) myself, I wouldn't think of clinging to it to deliberately offend thinkers/thinkists.  I'd only do that by accident.


----------



## cyberpedant

This Brooklynite has always thought it was "think."


----------



## Lexiphile

Further to the matter of "think" as a noun, I've had another think about it and produced some second thoughts.  The thing you thnk is the thought, and the process by which you generate that thought is a think.

Er... are you still with me..?

Perhaps Brioche was right.


----------



## cyberpedant

Thanks for your thoughts on "think." Who woulda thunk it?


----------



## ewie

For _that_ old favourite, see here > thunk


----------



## JamesM

prof2 said:


> So, let me get this straight then.... Basically, you are saying, "Let's let accuracy and correctness of the language hang! ".  I SEE!  Well, ok, then, I guess I will today and tell my students that correctness no longer matters; if they SAY it in whatever way, then that makes it all just fine. I am sure they will just love that!  Hmmmmm...should make my life easier, too: no more grading papers because whatever they say is correct!  Now I get your "point!"



I'm sure you honestly don't think that's what I'm saying, but isn't it fun to get indignant about these things?  

If you had read the thread you would have found out I'm firmly on the "think" side of the debate, but what I am saying is that there is only conjecture on the matter in any source I have read.  Although the common theory is that the "thing" came from the elision of the "k" in "think" and the "c" in coming, there is no proof offered.  

There are contemporaneous citations from 1919 for "think coming" and "thing coming" in two U.S. newspapers.  There are dictionary entries in different learner's dictionaries for "think" and "thing" in the phrase and, before you sneer, the "thing coming" is in Merriam-Webster's learner's dictionary: 

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/thing

"have another thing coming  informal —used to say that  someone is wrong or mistaken ▪ If he  thinks he can fool me, he has another thing coming"

I would think the most important thing you could teach your students would be _critical thinking skills_.  Is something true simply because I know it to be true and I've read sources that agree with me, or is there evidence that there is some disagreement about it?  If I say I have a source, how does that source support its conclusions or assertions?

However, I think people are more interested in spouting opinions than investigating the merits of their position, so this thread is probably doomed to continue for a long time to come.   Since we're operating in "opining" mode, I'm still convinced that "another think coming" is the "correct" expression, but I'm also smart enough to know I don't actually have any proof that it is.


----------



## Susan612

I'll chime in from New Jersey in support of think.


----------



## ewie

In the interests of scientific something-or-other and melting my brain, I've just totted up the results so far.  (Well, the results up to the end of page 3, to be precise ~ I got bored.)

*THINGERS**
US (incl. CAN): *10*
UK (incl. OZ): *5*
unknown: *1*

THINKERS
US (incl. CAN): *6*
UK (incl. OZ): *7*
unknown: *2

So, that's nice and conclusive, isn't it?


----------



## fenixpollo

prof2 said:


> JamesM, oh, I can provide sources...can YOU?


 Your indignation is meaningless bluster unless you provide  sources. You keep claiming that you can, but you don't. Until you post in this thread a verifiable quote (like piney did), you're not going to  convince anyone that "think" is somehow more correct than "thing".





piney said:


> Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary has an entry on this matter.
> 
> *Think*
> noun
> [ singular ]
> have a ˈthink (about sth) ( informal ) to think carefully about sth in order to make a decision about it
> I'll have a think and let you know tomorrow.
> you've got another think ˈcoming ( informal ) used to tell sb that they are wrong about sth and must change their plans or opinions
> If you think I'm going to pay all your bills you've got another think coming.
> © Oxford University Press, 2010


 I have never heard anyone use "think" as a noun in any context, which is why the "think coming" version of this expression doesn't sound right to me. 
I would not say that _I am going to *have a think *about something_: I would say that_ I am going to *think *about it_.
To me, _think _is a verb and not a noun.





Cagey said:


> But then why would you say it at all?  And why would it get passed on and survive?If you think that you've got another thing coming.​Where's the pep?  Where's the verve? Where is the rhyme or word-play that is usual in folk-sayings and makes them worth remembering and repeating?
> 
> It is not very interesting and it doesn't even make sense.  Where was the first thing, to make this another thing?


 "Thing" makes more sense than "think" because "thing" is a noun, while "think" is not (in my mind). I have no idea what the other "thing" might be, but then again, I use a lot of expressions that I can't make heads or tails of. 

Of course, if you use "think" as a noun, too, then I'm sure "another think coming" makes perfect sense and has lots of verve and pep. 



margiemarz said:


> It's _think_ in most of the USA.  I _think_ that _thing_ is merely a misstatement of the original by someone who didn't hear the "K."


I disagree that "think" is common in most of the USA. But that's just my own feeling, which is backed up by the scientific evidence presented in ewie's last post above. 

The pronunciation of the key sounds in this expression is most typically /thinkoming/, which some people might hear as "thing coming" and others might hear as "think coming". So it's easy to see how people would be confused as to which version of the phrase is being used.

Your chicken-and-egg theory is interesting, but how do you know that the "think" version was first, and that the "thing" version was merely a corruption of it? Maybe it's the other way around.


----------



## Forero

I have only ever heard the _thing_ version. I never thought the "thing" in question was a thought since I assumed it was some sort of action (like "or else") to persuade the person:

_If your cat imagines I will allow it to terrorize my songbirds, then it has another thing coming._

Would a _thinkist_ use _think_ in this sentence?


----------



## Spira

One more Brit: I say THINK.
Two thoughts: "Another think" coming has always made sense to me, as I understood that the person addressed needed to rethink his position on the subject. If it is "another thing", what is that thing, and what was the first thing that came?
Second thought: could thing/think be another AE/BE deviant similar to "could care less/couldn't care less?


----------



## prof2

Hey, fenix...how about giving me a chance to post the proof? I'm at work doing a little thing called teaching English !   Once I get a chance to, I will post a plethora of proof.  Oh, and by the way, could you explain to me what the "thing" is that you have coming to you and why that makes the slightest sense whatsoever?  At least "think" continues the theme mentioned in the first half of the phrase. Your "thing" makes less than no sense and isn't a decent segue from the first half at all!


----------



## Spira

_If your cat imagines I will allow it to terrorize my songbirds, then it has another thing coming._

This sentence really is meaningless, isn't it? What thing? The only support for this theory is that it is a traditional set phrase devoid of precise meaning used in certain situations, which could well be the case, I suppose.


----------



## dn88

> To have 'another think coming' is to be greatly mistaken. The phrase is  usually spoken by an antagonist as 'you have another think coming'; the  implication being that one will shortly be obliged to adopt a different  viewpoint, either by the presentation of indisputable evidence, or by  force.


SOURCE

_*Google:*_

*"have a think"*: 6,720,000 results
*"another think coming"*: 27,700 results
*"another thing coming"*:364,000 results

_*Yahoo! (AltaVista):*_

*"have a think"*: 586,000,000 results
*"another think coming"*: 318,000,000 results
*"another thing coming"*:302,000,000 results

It seems that Google has a _thing_ for a _thing_.


EDIT:

The *British National Corpus* gives no results for "another thing coming" but gives 14 results for "another think coming".


----------



## David_Porta

I have been reading old mystery novels, science fiction, and westerns from the 1930s-1940s lately, and the "think" usage frequently crops up. No "things," so far. That is anecdotal, but it does remind me that when there is a question as to meaning (e.g., in the case of "celibate") or a question as to pronunciation (e.g., in the case of "schism") the AHD does make reference to earliest printed usage, and frequency of usage in print over time. They also look at contemporary usage, and in some instances will concede that the traditional meaning or pronunciation has become outmoded and is no longer is authoritative (though they hold the fort on lie not lay).

In this case, I suspect that the historical usage test will find little evidence of "thing" (in old books) and, as this thread attests, in contemporary usage the traditionalists are plentiful.


----------



## timpeac

I'm a thinker not a thinger. "You've got another thing coming" had never crossed my mind!

Edit - and I've just asked someone sitting next to me and "you've got another think coming" has never crossed their mind! Seems pretty random therefore.


----------



## panjandrum

dn88 said:


> ....
> It seems that Google has a _thing_ for a _thing_.
> ...


No matter which view you take on this fascinating discussion, Google counts at that level, on phrases that could occur in many different structures apart from the topic of this thread, are not really going to convince anyone.


----------



## elirlandes

I am definitely a "*thing*" guy. I have heard "think" and it kind of works for me as well, but I would never say it.


----------



## timpeac

"Thing" doesn't even make sense to my mind - oh well horses for courses I suppose!


----------



## Nunty

I believe I switched horses in the middle of the stream. I was on Team "Thing" for years, and about a decade ago I decided that didn't make much sense, so I changed to "think".


----------



## timpeac

Nunty said:


> I believe I switched horses in the middle of the stream. I was on Team "Thing" for years, and about a decade ago I decided that didn't make much sense, so I changed to "think".


 Well, just to be clear - it wasn't an intellectual choice for me - I'd never even realised that some people might be saying "thing". I find it very interesting that my partner things that "think" is ridiculous - it doesn't sound correct to his ears at all. I can only assume that we decide early on which we thing (ok I'll stop that now) we've heard and then carry on hearing what we presume people must be saying.


----------



## Nunty

For me, saying "thing" was not a decision, but changing it definitely was. It was sort of an "aha moment".


----------



## timpeac

Nunty said:


> For me, saying "thing" was not a decision, but changing it definitely was. It was sort of an "aha moment".


In your "thing" days, did you realise at least that some people might be saying "think" (as presumably they must have been on occasion judging by the statistics quoted above - by ewie I think)? This thread was a revelation for me that there was even a "thing" choice! And, as I say, my partner has never heard of "think".


----------



## Nunty

No, I don't think I did realize that people were saying _think_ instead of _thing_. I think that I heard it one day and noticed it for some reason  and decided _Oh! That's how it should it be! That makes sense!_


----------



## jpyvr

Count me in with the "think" crowd. Until I just happened across this thread, the idea of "thing" never even occured to me. In fact, I remember my mother often saying to me things along the line of "If you think that you're so smart, you've got another think coming!" or "If you think that I'm going to pick up your room, you've got another think coming." Obviously, she was using "think" and not "thing." So mark one more "think" for the Canadians.


----------



## jme1323

I've read a couple times before that the quote comes from Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird." Lee's version is "You've got another think coming," but whether this is the origin of the expression is debated. The popular version is "thing."

"You've got another think coming" appears only to be valid when "think" has already been used in the subordinate clause, whereas "thing" applies more generally to conditional scenarios using this sentence structure. Since "think" is not a noun, I would venture to say that when it is employed, its use is simply a play on words. The proper grammatical phrasing would be "you have another thought coming."


----------



## JamesM

The expression is recorded long before "To Kill a Mockingbird".

Here are some examples from 1906 to 1910:

http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1,cdr:1,cd_min:Jan%201_2%201906,cd_maxec%2031_2%201910&tbo=p&q=%22got+another+think+coming%22&num=10#q=%22got+another+think+coming%22&hl=en&tbs=bks:1,cdr:1,cd_min:Jan+1_2+1906,cd_maxec+31_2+1910&ei=2HiiTOSrEcrCnAftrOSIBA&start=0&sa=N&fp=2dfc80589dce1472



			
				jme1323 said:
			
		

> The popular version is "thing."


 
And you're basing this statement on... what? We have people from different English-speaking countries who are sure it is "think" and others who are sure that it is "thing". We have dictionary entries of both versions.  We have examples in literature for both versions. How are you determining which one is "popular"?


----------



## jme1323

Thanks for the info--interesting. There appears to be one example of "another thing coming" as early as 1902, but the expression seems more popular in the "think" form from 1906 onwards. 

That is, until recently... =)


----------



## prof2

I totally agree with you, jme1323.


----------



## mplsray

It looks as if no one has yet noted in this thread the dates of first attribution which the Oxford English Dictionary gives for these idioms. The following come from the entries "think" and "thing" respectively:


> *
> [1.]c. to have another think coming**...
> 
> 1898* _Syracuse_ (N.Y.) _Standard_ 21 May 8/1 Conroy lives in Troy and thinks he is a corning fighter. This gentleman has another think coming.





> *P17. to have another thing coming...
> 1919* _Syracuse_ (N.Y.) _Herald _12 Aug. 8/3 If you think the life of a movie star is all sunshine and flowers you've got another thing coming.


The editors of the OED think that the _think_ version came first.

From my point of view, this information is of no interest in determining which idiom is standard, since by usage they both are. They are used by speakers of standard dialects of English with the exact same meaning. They are used in writing as well as speech. Attempting to pick apart any idiom to determine if it is standard compared to another version of the same idiom accomplishes nothing. Either a given idiom is used by educated speakers or it is not. If it is, then it is a standard idiom. If it is not, it is a nonstandard idiom. _The individual parts don't count in the case of any idiom, standard or nonstandard!_ It is usage and usage alone which determines if a group of words is an idiom, and if it is an idiom, then it is usage and usage alone which determines if that idiom is standard or nonstandard.


----------



## jme1323

JamesM said:


> ...
> And you're basing this statement on... what? We have people from different English-speaking countries who are sure it is "think" and others who are sure that it is "thing". We have dictionary entries of both versions.  We have examples in literature for both versions. How are you determining which one is "popular"?




I'm basing the assumption on all the obvious available information: years of literature study, television and film viewings, listening to the conversations of my fellow man. I've heard the "think" version in very few cases, and in those cases it could be classified as a play on words. Thus I deem the "thing" version the popular one.

As well as the grammatically correct one.


----------



## Spira

Jme has an interesting idea that they both should exist correctly, depending on the content of the subordinate clause.
My only disagreement with post 160 is the statement: The popular version is "thing" , as 159 previous posts have made it quite clear that there is no clear majority on this.

It is interesting to note that most forum participants claim to have only ever heard the one or the other. (Me too. I say THINK and never realised there was a THING option until the opening of this thread). Just about only Nunty has claimed active recognition of both. It certainly supports the theory that people hear and understand what they expect to hear, rather than what is said.


----------



## cyberpedant

Spira said:


> It is interesting to note that most forum participants claim to have only ever heard the one or the other. (Me too. I say THINK and never realised there was a THING option until the opening of this thread).



I'm in complete agreement here. When I first saw the thread title I was ready to jump in with " 'thing' is wrong." It still makes little sense to me, but I guess I'll have to accept it. "Pigeons on the grass. Alas!"


----------



## timpeac

jme1323 said:


> I've read a couple times before that the quote comes from Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird." Lee's version is "You've got another think coming," but whether this is the origin of the expression is debated. The popular version is "thing."


This thread doesn't support this comment - it seems that popularity is pretty much split 50-50


jme1323 said:


> "You've got another think coming" appears only to be valid when "think" has already been used in the subordinate clause, whereas "thing" applies more generally to conditional scenarios using this sentence structure.


Disagree - many people, myself included, only use "think". 





jme1323 said:


> Since "think" is not a noun,


Yes it is - "sit there and have a think about what you've done".





jme1323 said:


> I would venture to say that when it is employed, its use is simply a play on words. The proper grammatical phrasing would be "you have another thought coming."


Again, disagree - I like many people have never heard of "thing" in this usage, so it's not a play on words at all - and not more or less ungrammatical.


----------



## preppie

If it is indeed "thing" and I have another one coming.. What was the first 'thing' I received.  And now I get to enjoy a second ?  or third ?


----------



## Nunty

preppie said:


> If it is indeed "thing" and I have another one coming.. What was the first 'thing' I received.  And now I get to enjoy a second ?  or third ?


I think it's asking rather a lot of the English language to expect colloquialisms to make logical sense. When was the last time you saw quadrupeds falling from the clouds when it was raining cats and dogs?


----------



## preppie

Only when the hailstones have weird shapes ! But I really think that this one does have some logc.

"If you think "x" then you have another 'think' coming." makes perfectly good sense. Even if it's merely a bastardized turn of "then you better think about it again". 

I can't sqaueeze "thing" in tho the lgoic at all. And yes, many phrases have no sense - or perhaps not in today's culture. Does anyone really "dial" their phone that much ? BUT it still makes sense knowing the root. I'm sure, somehwere in the cobwebs, I can find an expression that makes no sense because a word has been replaced - perhaps a malapropism or maybe just a misunderstanding. I really think that 'thing' is a misheard word that is now repeated as gospel.


----------



## elirlandes

Well, the "other think" that you thinkists hold on to is in fact a thing ["thing" being a catch all word for something that is not defined].


----------



## timpeac

elirlandes said:


> Well, the "other think" that you thinkists hold on to is in fact a thing ["thing" being a catch all word for something that is not defined].


Why do you say it's not defined? A think is a period of reflection.

From the WR dictionary -

_noun_
*1 **think*

_an instance of deliberate thinking; "I need to give it a good think"  _


----------



## fenixpollo

As a fervent _thinger_, allow me to clarify: The expression "you've got another thing coming" has *no* pep, verve, logic, rhyme or reason. There is no first "thing" that is being alluded to. You _thinkers_ who are looking for some sort of logic, rationale or justification for why the phrase exists -- you won't find any. It just exists. You don't have to like it, but you have to accept it... just as we _thingers_ accept that your version of the phrase, which sounds unnatural and contrived to our ears, also exists.

It's a set phrase; a saying that I heard occasionally while I was growing up. Like many sayings in English, people use it without any knowledge of its origin or true meaning. *And its "meaning" doesn't matter*: I understand well enough what my parents are saying when they tell me "...you've got another thing coming!" I don't ask them what the first "thing" was, unless I want to really get it.


----------



## preppie

I guess that makes me a fervent "thinker".  I like that !  Thanks !

I heartily agree with you, if it's a thing there probably wasn't a first thing, unless it was the first erroneous 'think' that I had.  So, generically, I have another 'thing' coming - and it's specifically a 'think' !


----------



## elirlandes

fenixpollo said:


> As a fervent _thinger_, allow me to clarify: The expression "you've got another thing coming" has *no* pep, verve, logic, rhyme or reason. There is no first "thing" that is being alluded to. You _thinkers_ who are looking for some sort of logic, rationale or justification for why the phrase exists -- you won't find any. It just exists. You don't have to like it, but you have to accept it... just as we _thingers_ accept that your version of the phrase, which sounds unnatural and contrived to our ears, also exists.
> 
> It's a set phrase; a saying that I heard occasionally while I was growing up. Like many sayings in English, people use it without any knowledge of its origin or true meaning. *And its "meaning" doesn't matter*: I understand well enough what my parents are saying when they tell me "...you've got another thing coming!" I don't ask them what the first "thing" was, unless I want to really get it.



A similar argument exists for the debate between "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less". Both are used by many, many people - which one is correct? The answer is both of them are correct, because they are both used extensively. To my ears the first one makes no sense, but as a set phrase, I now understand it because I know what people mean when they use it.


----------



## Kayta

Very interesting debate. I am a firm "thing"er simply because until today I had never heard of "a think." Although, just spoke to my mum in her 70's and she had only ever heard "think". 

At the risk of punning, I think a point some people have missed is that the 2 sayings are not always interchangeable. 

"If you think I'm going out in that rain, you're got another think/thing comming." 

works either way. But without the initial word "think" to provide a word play it doesn't work. 

"If you expect me to go out in that rain, you've got another thing/think comming." 

In this example "think" doesn't make sense.

I've also heard it applied to things that can't think.

"If that tree drops a branch on my new car, it's got another thing comming."

Trees, presumably, don't think. (At least I hope they don't, 'cause I prune!)


----------



## Uriel-

I've heard it said both ways, and people have pretty good arguments for either variant, so who knows which came first -- but I've always thought of it as "you've got another think coming" (a slangy way of saying "you better think again").


----------



## Cagey

Kayta said:


> [....]
> 
> I've also heard it applied to things that can't think.
> 
> "If that tree drops a branch on my new car, it's got another thing comming."
> 
> Trees, presumably, don't think. (At least I hope they don't, 'cause I prune!)


This is interesting.  I don't think I have ever heard this applied to inanimate objects.  As I have heard it used, it is a warning or a threat, which wouldn't be much use if the object wasn't capable of thought.   

Above, the point was made that we probably hear what we expect to hear, but I believe I always hear it with _think_ as the verb.    I wouldn't be startled to hear it used with another word for mental processing, like "expect" but I wouldn't expect it to be used with other verbs.  

(I am of the _think ... think_ persuasion.)


----------



## Loob

Kayta said:


> "If you expect me to go out in that rain, you've got another thing/think comming."
> [...]
> "If that tree drops a branch on my new car, it's got another thing comming."


I would happily say "think" in both your examples, Kayta. 

(A girl should always listen to her mother....)


----------



## Kayta

Cagey said:


> This is interesting. I don't think I have ever heard this applied to inanimate objects. As I have heard it used, it is a warning or a threat, which wouldn't be much use if the object wasn't capable of thought.


 
The threat is expressed _to_ another person, who hopefully can think, _about_ the tree, which can't. i.e. "If that tree drops a branch on my new car I'll cut down the tree." - but with more menacing overtones.


----------



## Imber Ranae

The "thing" version makes sense to me on analogy with another common idiom: "had it coming".You had it coming = you should have seen that it would happen if you didn't stop doing whatever (therefore you deserved it.)

You have another thing coming = it will turn out quite differently from what you expect (so don't be surprised when it does.)​I wonder if the former may have influenced the (presumably) original "think" version to become the latter.


----------



## miss.meri91

I was watching the movie _Anywhere But Home_ last night, and I heard this expression used. I replayed it several times, and it sounded to me as if he was saying, "You've got another *thing* coming." Perhaps it really just doesn't matter anymore. Both expressions are common, therefore both are acceptable.


----------



## The White House

Wow, can you believe it? Almost 5 years in the making!

When I was growing up I had a “thing” in my head, planted there no doubt by my parents and peers. Educated they were not, yet I couldn’t shake it. As I grew older, I “thought” more about it, but kept this “thing” in my head. Now, I “think” after navigating the preceding verbal labyrinth, I see several issues: usage, meaning, grammar and origin.

The lively posts show both versions in common use throughout the world. However, based on the native language and text, I deduce “thinkers” predominately hail from locations that learned the Queen’s English while “thingers” predominately hail from American English learning. [Note: I am not claiming language or grammar expertise; I am an engineer and pilot by training. Enough said!]

However, if I can refocus on the original blog question, “Is the expression "you've got another *think* coming"? or "another *thing* coming"?” [river] I hope you have enjoyed the banter! But the question fails to provide the first part of the idiom, which could make a difference in your follow-on response, “If you think that,…” or “If that is what you think,…” I will use the former, even though very similar, to keep from too many permutations.

While for me this puts the “usage” issue to rest, both are common, I had to rethink the other issues to decide for myself which version I would use. Several contributors caused me to think twice about the subject and while some believe the meanings to be the same, I see a subtle difference. In my mind, the “thing” version appears to be more confrontational while the “thinker” version, depending on tone, is more of an admonishment [i.e., friendly earnest advice]. Oh yes, I do try and understand the meaning of words before I use them. But “meaning” and “grammar” can be complementary.

“If you think that, you have another thin_ coming.” There could be two points of reference for “another”. First, if it refers to “think”, then “think” follows and it becomes an admonishment. Some have used “have another think” to describe. Second, if it refers to “that”, another “that” does not make sense; however, I guess you could use “thing” to mean something more ominous. Thirdly, “another thing” could standalone and goes beyond “another think” and into something stronger/threatening and for the mind to conjure up (confrontational). Or, the thing to follow is going to be really, really bad! So, modern usage appears to allow both. But please, ensure you understand what message you are trying to convey.

Perhaps the “origin” would provide focus on which “_” was first, but like the “chicken and the egg”, unless everyone is a Geneticist, we will likely disagree. So, thinking again, despite pointing to family history, Google search results, dictionary definitions, ad nauseam, we will likely continue to disagree. I do understand the hypothesis of one of the original contributors that the ending sound of “think” and beginning sound of “coming”, when spoken quickly together can sound like “thing coming”. So, perhaps as a child I misunderstood what my parents and peers annunciated. After all, my inner ear was still forming, or was it. [Noted: An engineer’s veiled attempt at humor.] When seeing the word “mondegreen” referenced in one post, I immediately looked it up and saw what mispronunciation or accents can do to a word or string of words. Try sounding there, their and they’re and ensuring you write it correctly in context.

My thoughts took me to the question, if the first recorded printing of the expression was the early 1800s (past posts), I am sure it was spoken before then, but when and where. Therefore, if is doubtful anyone can say with certainty which it was. I have heard a good detective uses clues to piece together a story. Since you know my background, maybe you will think I am not so good of a detective! However, after reading books and papers from that era (Didn’t they write funny?), hearing the British “sense of humour” (Can that ever change?), knowing where “English” originated (sorry, not in the US), I believe the first usage was “think” and “thing” followed.

So, from all the posts I read, “rethinking”, “thinking again”, “having another think”, and “thinking twice”, I believe I understand the expression. Oops, do these four expressions predate the idiom or come after to ensure clarity? Regardless, only one version combines the aforementioned and uses “think” twice. Which is it? I think the egg! However, if you say the chicken, we can agree to disagree.


----------



## Aethon

Just because people say it all the time, does not make it correct.  I hear people often use "irregardless" and despite the fact that it grates on the nerves, it's just one of those things (not thinks).  However, I have always heard it as "thing" but after hearing it with "think" and doing some research, it makes lots more sense as "think".  Thing is just vague.  And just because people use it (and continue to use it) doesn't mean I have to start saying "irregardless" either.

Food for thought (so to speak): the expressions "you better think twice" and "think again" have meanings very close to "you've got another think coming".  Therefore, it seems just one of those things that started one way and derailed from it's original meaning.


----------



## Dale Texas

It's not that "another thing coming" _annoys_ me, I've just never heard it and still don't know what's it's supposed to mean!


----------



## mplsray

Dale Texas said:


> It's not that "another thing coming" _annoys_ me, I've just never heard it and still don't know what's it's supposed to mean!



What it means is obvious from its use, just as "happy as a clam" is obvious from its use. The vast majority who use the latter expression have never been informed of its etymology, but nevertheless knows that it means "very happy." The _thing/think_ idioms both mean "Your belief is incorrect." Any nuances between the two versions are merely etymological, not determinative of the current meaning of the idiom. To insist that the "another thing" version is either wrong or means something other than the "another think" version--is a fallacy in the same class as insisting that _a dilapidated building_ can apply only to a stone building--examples of the etymological fallacy.


----------



## mplsray

It occurs to me that there is an error in thinking that the idiom "If you think that, you've got another think coming" has a logical literal meaning. I do not believe it does. The original version would seem to have intended to criticize the person being addressed by saying that he should think again about a particular belief, so that he would see the error of his ways and come to have the correct belief. But for that to literally be true, the sentence should be something like "If you think that, you should rethink your position." 

To insist that the person being addressed has something which he does not actually have is illogical: "you've got another think coming" is literally meaningless--the _have got_ is the possession version, not the obligation version of that verb form. We can certainly reinterpret it to mean "rethink your position," but when we do that we are _translating_ the idiom, not logically assessing the sentence based upon its individual parts--which, if we could actually do so, would leave it being not an idiom at all.


----------



## JamesM

But that's leaving out the "coming", which changes the meaning.  "If you miss this train, you've got another one coming at 4 p.m." does not mean that the person owns the train or controls the schedule.


----------



## mplsray

JamesM said:


> But that's leaving out the "coming", which changes the meaning.  "If you miss this train, you've got another one coming at 4 p.m." does not mean that the person owns the train or controls the schedule.



But the idiom is saying the person has another _think_ coming when the person does _not_ actually have any such thing, and is not likely to have any such thing--The average person does not respond favorably to an insult to his intelligence. The statement is a round-about way of expressing a wish, or even a command. It may be idiomatic, but it is literally false.


----------



## will3154

Which one could I follow with? You got me there!


----------



## Dale Texas

I claim the entire set idiom is "if you think that, you've got another think coming"  and both logic and _alliteration_ do apply here.  *To discuss only the second lopped off part of the expression is not to discuss the expression. 
*
I certainly would not advise a non-native speaker to start saying "happy as a clan" rather than "happy as a clam" and would not bother with an etymology or logic/non-logic of either one, and naturally would think the first is a mishearing of the second, and yes, gasp, would correct them.   

If ulitmately that mishearing spreads to millions and millions of people, well, usage trumps and the expression then becomes what people say it is.


----------



## Forero

Which makes more sense depends on the listener's background.

I often hear "He's gonna get it" and "He had it coming". In "He has other thing coming", the "other thing" is the same as the "it", i.e. something that will "teach him a lesson". Someone unfamiliar with "getting it" or "having it coming" would not see any meaning in the "other thing" sentence.

On the other hand, "He has another think coming" is understandable but sounds "non-standard" to someone unfamiliar with "think" as a noun. Does "another think" refer to another thought, another consideration, another time to think it through, or another belief?


----------



## JamesM

mplsray said:


> But the idiom is saying the person has another _think_ coming when the person does _not_ actually have any such thing, and is not likely to have any such thing--The average person does not respond favorably to an insult to his intelligence. The statement is a round-about way of expressing a wish, or even a command. It may be idiomatic, but it is literally false.



I don't see it any more or less true than "If you think the world is going to fall at your feet, you've got a surprise coming."  The person may find that the world does actually fall at his feet.  I'd say it's more of a prediction than a wish or a command.

In many cases, the person using the expression is about to disabuse the other person of his current notion, so it's a fairly safe prediction.


"If you think I would marry you, you've got another think coming."
"If you think I'm going to let you go to that party with your homework unfished, you've got another think coming."

(I'm obviously in the "think" camp.  )


----------



## JamesM

Dale Texas said:


> If ulitmately that mishearing spreads to millions and millions of people, well, usage trumps and the expression then becomes what people say it is.



Yes, but we find ourselves in a situation where millions of people are camped out on both sides of the issue and are certain that the other side is mishearing.  Both usages abound, so nothing trumps.  It is an interesting situation.


----------



## Miss Julie

"Another thing" = something else. I don't understand all the debate about this. The phrase is "*another thing coming*." Just because the error is widespread doesn't mean it should be perpetuated.


----------



## JamesM

And Miss Julie proves my point...


----------



## Loob

You're in danger of starting the whole debate off again, Miss Julie.  

The comment by mplsray earlier in this thread seems to me to be very wise:





mplsray said:


> [...]
> The editors of the OED think that the _think_ version came first.
> 
> From my point of view, this information is of no interest in determining  which idiom is standard, since by usage they both are. They are used by  speakers of standard dialects of English with the exact same meaning.  They are used in writing as well as speech. Attempting to pick apart any  idiom to determine if it is standard compared to another version of the  same idiom accomplishes nothing. Either a given idiom is used by  educated speakers or it is not. If it is, then it is a standard idiom.  If it is not, it is a nonstandard idiom. _The individual parts don't count in the case of any idiom, standard or nonstandard!_  It is usage and usage alone which determines if a group of words is an  idiom, and if it is an idiom, then it is usage and usage alone which  determines if that idiom is standard or nonstandard.


----------



## JulianStuart

I have always heard the sense and logic like this:



> If you(r first) think (led you to believe) that, you have another think coming (when you'll finally realize that's wrong).



So I was surpised to hear there was another version - obviously, the other version doesn't make sense to me.

This is what I thought when I heard that version:



> If you think that (there were only three things delivered  today), you have another thing coming (it hasn't been delivered yet).


----------



## Alex_K

Lol, this is a funny argument.  Sorting through the pages of points and counterpoints, and all your reasons why one version must be correct over the other, I've come to the conclusion that both are correct.  Basically, it's a regional thing.  I grew up in Virginia where we say "soda."  I moved to WA where everyone says "pop."  In TX, everything is a "coke."  Seems to be that "think" and "thing" fall under pretty much the same sort of deal.  People are going to say what they grew up saying, which doesn't make either phrase right or wrong.  Trying to say that one person's version is essentially stupid over another person's is ridiculous to me.  I'm not running around here demanding everyone say "soda" just because it's different than what I grew up with, and they aren't laughing at me for being one of the few that doesn't use "pop."  Just accept that we say things differently and move on!


----------



## JulianStuart

Alex_K said:


> Just accept that we say things differently and move on!



I thing you mean "We say thinks differently".

One of the earliest things I learnt when I joined here was the sheer breadth of the differences across the world (and in time) in how English is (mis)spoken or (mis)understood.  However, this forum* is to a significant extent a discussion exactly about those differences!  So we discuss these things, all the while moving along 

The forum subtitle is


> Discussions in English about the English language.


----------



## Dale Texas

Now another thing is...so now you've got anothing thing coming.... is one's understanding of an idiom as opposed to a set expression.  I agree that "to put up with" is an idiom whose meaning must be learned as a whole, because it's individual parts give no clue to it's meaning even to a native speaker and is "illogical."

Something like "set in stone" to me is not an idiom but rather an expression whose meaning is clear, or could become clear very quicky, probably so even when tranlsated into other languages.  True, upon it's first encounter it might be questioned by a non-native speaker, and they might need guidance on when to use it, but I'm hard pressed to believe they'd find it "illogical."  So this conversation goes beyond the surprise we find in encountering other native speakers of English using expressions differently and gets into other things.  I'm not here to make other people wrong at all, and am just genuinely surprised, and those of us who are talking about the logic of "if you think that you've got another think coming" have always known it as that expression with logic, not an idiom with none at all.

Obviously all languages have their illogical elements, but everything about a language is not lacking in sense, either.


----------



## bdpalawan

Old post, I know, but a few thoughts. I found this while searching for this idiom.

Neither of the sounds represented by the /k/ nor /ng, respectively, are "palatalized." They are velar (palatal includes sounds such as y, double-L in Spanish, etc.) Velars are not quite swallowed (there are sounds articulated much further back in the throat). But you are correct that the problem people have in hearing the difference is that phonetically, without an unnatural pause between "thing (or think)" and "coming," it sounds the same: _thingcoming_. It is ambiguous as to whether the /ng/ is the /ng of "thing" or the /n/ of "think" (both represent the same velar nasal sound.)

And the original expression actually IS "another THINK coming." It's an idiomatic, intentionally ungrammatical form. But because of the phonological ambiguity (and a natural rejection of ungrammatical forms), people have taken to saying "another thing coming" as much, if not more than, the correct form.


----------



## JulianStuart

Thanks for reviving this !  I discovered Ngram viewer since the last go-around 
Whether you look at British English, American English or English as a whole , you can see that _think_ is the clear "winner" and_ thing_ did not show up with_ any significant usage_ (in the Google scanned books database, at least) until around 1960.  Think started in American English around 1900 and gained greatly increased popularity in British English after WW2.


----------



## Phil-Olly

Quite.  I wonder if at some time in the future we'll see an extended discussion about the "correct" words of the Lord's Prayer are "...Hallowed by thy Name" or the much more popular and higher Google-scoring, "...Harold be thy Name."


----------



## bdpalawan

Actually the debate has begun. It's neither of those *smile*




Phil-Olly said:


> Quite.  I wonder if at some time in the future we'll see an extended discussion about the "correct" words of the Lord's Prayer are "...Hallowed by thy Name" or the much more popular and higher Google-scoring, "...Harold be thy Name."


----------



## SGT Sarcasm

While I can see how "you've got another think coming" makes sense, I completely fail to see how anyone thinks "you've got another thing coming" doesn't make sense. 

Quite obvious, actually; you think THIS is going to happen,  but someTHING else happens instead.


----------



## JulianStuart

Phil-Olly said:


> Quite.  I wonder if at some time in the future we'll see an extended discussion about the "correct" words of the Lord's Prayer are "...Hallowed by thy Name" or the much more popular and higher Google-scoring, "...Harold be thy Name."



You'll probably get different results when you do a simple google search on the (largely unedited) internet (including blogs, forums and non-native English forms) than you will if you use printed books (that's where ngram gets its data). I put little weight in google search results for English language usage study  but studying data from over 4% of the books ever printed gives me a better feeling.

The thing form is a child of the '60s


----------



## Fabulist

JulianStuart said:


> The thing form is a child of the '60s



Maybe in print, but it's what I remember hearing from my mother as a child, and I was 13 by 1960.  I'm sure my mother didn't switch from "think" to "thing" because of something she read after 1960, and by 1965 I was mostly out of the house and off to college, so she wouldn't have had much opportunity to use it by then.

I had never heard of the "think" version until I read this thread (not just now, in one of its earlier stages, but still within the last year or whatever).  Frankly, when I did read about the "think" version it seemed self-evidently erroneous.


----------



## mplsray

Phil-Olly said:


> Quite.  I wonder if at some time in the future we'll see an extended discussion about the "correct" words of the Lord's Prayer are "...Hallowed by thy Name" or the much more popular and higher Google-scoring, "...Harold be thy Name."



As previously mentioned, it's neither of these. However, the general phenomenon of an expression dropping a word but meaning the same thing, even though some consider there to be a logical objection to the new expression is, in my opinion, likely to continue far into the future.

_I could care less_ for _I couldn't care less_ is also a product of the 1960s. An example of an earlier transition can be seen here, where it is pointed out that a new use for _but_ came about when a sentence such as "I will not say but one word" dropped the _not_​ and became "I will say but one word."


----------



## JulianStuart

Fabulist said:


> Maybe in print, but it's what I remember hearing from my mother as a child, and I was 13 by 1960.  I'm sure my mother didn't switch from "think" to "thing" because of something she read after 1960, and by 1965 I was mostly out of the house and off to college, so she wouldn't have had much opportunity to use it by then.
> 
> I had never heard of the "think" version until I read this thread (not just now, in one of its earlier stages, but still within the last year or whatever).  Frankly, when I did read about the "think" version it seemed self-evidently erroneous.



Your mother seems to have been one of the "trendsetters" who influenced the subsequent printed books!  That's how word usage changes and new meanings (or new explanation for the changed words) come into being!


----------



## tqmbill

"'Scuse me, while I kiss this guy"
"'Scuse me, while I kiss the sky"

You've got another thinK coming.  Thing?  What was the first thing?  What could the second thing be?  That's too vague.  Only thinK makes sense to me.  I thought one thing.  But pretty soon, someone smarter (e.g. a parent?) is going to enlighten me to the TRUTH, and then I'll have to think again.


----------



## Miss Julie

*Another thing* just means "something else."

*Think* is not a noun (at least not in the U.S.), so "another think" does not make sense (to me).


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

Miss Julie said:


> *Another thing* just means "something else."
> 
> *Think* is not a noun (at least not in the U.S.), so "another think" does not make sense (to me).



Did you read the previous 211 entries? So didn't I.  But I agree with your conclusion - 'Another 'think' coming, albeit the original (prior) form, makes me feel queasy.


----------



## Glasguensis

Miss Julie said:


> *Think* is not a noun (at least not in the U.S.).


I'm afraid it is. Check Chambers, Merriam Webster, Wiktionary, etc. It's usually used in an expression like "I'll need to have a think about it".


----------



## Goldfinch

tqmbill said:


> "'Scuse me, while I kiss this guy"
> "'Scuse me, while I kiss the sky"
> 
> You've got another thinK coming.  Thing?  What was the first thing?  What could the second thing be?  That's too vague.  Only thinK makes sense to me.  I thought one thing.  But pretty soon, someone smarter (e.g. a parent?) is going to enlighten me to the TRUTH, and then I'll have to think again.


"If you think you can steal that bike then you have another thing coming" makes sense to me in that the 'another thing' is something ominous other than the thing that was expected, that is, the theft of the bike. I've not read much of the thread so apologies if this has been said already or if I'm being nonsensical.


----------



## Cagey

Hello Goldfinch, and welcome to the forum.   

There is not much that hasn't been said before on each side of the debate. 
Whichever side you chose, there will be people who agree with you and people who disagree with you just as strongly.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'd never noticed this thread until today.  I've always said, and think I've heard *thing*, but I'm quite happy to learn that I have often misheard.

The ngrams show clearly the relative popularity of the _*think*_ version.  I agree that it's often used in an expression like *'If you think that, you've got another thin? coming'*, so _*think*_ would make more sense.

_*Think*_ is well established as a noun and is different from _*thought*_ -* I sat down and had a good think.
*
It's clear that the phrases co-exist, and interesting that the ngrams suggest that for much of the 19th century the* thing *version was the more popular, though the readings may be too small to be significant. *(ps. see the next two posts: I think JulianStuart's ngrams in post 204 are more helpful, and debunk the suggestion I put forward in the second part of this sentence)

*The _*think*_ version is occasionally found in literature, mostly AE literature of a hundred years ago.  I couldn't find an example in literature of the_* thing*_ version.

There are plenty of sages on the web explaining that that *thing* version is an error caused by mishearing *think*.


----------



## JulianStuart

TT - your results differ from mine (post 204) where I included the _got_ before _another,_ to make it more definitive. " There's/There will be another thing coming along now" would show up as your 19th century hits but not relevant to this!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hi Julian,

Many thanks for this.  I thought I'd searched all the pages for ngram data, but missed your post somehow.  Forgive me.

Good point about 'another thing coming along'.  I think you were wise to add that 'got'.


----------



## tqmbill

Excellent links, Julian.  Ngram is very cool.  Hadn't seen that one before.  Google's got another thinG coming.


----------



## snworks

panjandrum said:


> I don't feel the need to try - it is clear that there is a very well-established "thing" movement.  My curiousity about the nature of the "thing" is (almost) genuine.  I would like to know more about thingism.  What are the characteristics of this thing?



The thing that is coming is some sort of punishment of physical violence.


----------



## OBXConsumer

Here in the ole southern United States, it is "another think coming". As my parents used to say, "If you think you are staying out late, you've got another think coming!"


----------



## wandle

Are we all agreed by now that 'think' can indeed be a noun? Here is the OED entry for that:
*noun [in singular] *_informal_ an act of thinking:
I went for a walk to have a think

This usage is described as 'informal', which means that the OED have enough evidence to establish 'think' as a noun in that register. It would not surprise me to find it in a good modern novel. At any rate, the fact that the OED includes it shows that there is sufficient real life evidence for this usage.

Given that, it seems we can establish with reasonable probability which expression came first. 
In fact, not only do we have two different phrases, but we have two different meanings. 

(a) 'You have (got) another think coming' means 'You are about to change your mind'. 
(b) 'You have (got) another thing coming' means, we are told, 'Something unpleasant is about to happen to you'.

If the expression originated as 'you have (got) another thing coming', then why would it be associated with 'if you think that'? Why 'think'? Why would it not be associated equally with a range of other verbs?

Why not, for example, 'If you believe /imagine /suppose that, you've got another thing coming'? 
Why not, 'If you're saying that, you've got another thing coming'? Or, 'If that's your position..'?
(If any of these expressions do occur, they are far less frequent than 'if you think that'.)

If the meaning is 'Something unpleasant is about to happen to you', then why would it not be used in a range of other situations?
Why not, for example, 'Clean up your room, or you've got another thing coming'?
Why not, 'If you go playing in the street again, you've got another thing coming'?

On the other hand, if the expression originated as 'you have (got) another think coming', then (a) we have a logical connection with 'if you think that', (b) we have a pointed and witty expression and (c) we can see how 'think coming' could easily be misheard, especially by children, as 'thing coming'.  

It requires a bit more effort to say 'think coming' with the two 'k' sounds clearly distinguished than to say 'thing coming' with only one 'k' sound. As linguists recognise, there is a natural tendency in pronunciation, where there are similar-sounding letter combinations, for the more difficult one to be replaced by the easier one. That is very typical of children's attempts at pronunciation.

All this persuades me that 'think' - which is the only version I had ever known before reading this thread - has to be the original form.

Since writing the above, I found that JulianStuart in post 204 had put another argument for this: 


> I discovered Ngram viewer since the last go-around. Whether you look at British English, American English  or English as a whole,  you can see that think is the clear "winner" and thing did not show up with any significant usage(in the Google scanned books database, at least) until around 1960. Think started in American English around 1900 and gained greatly increased popularity in British English after WW2.



This convincingly indicates that the expression became popular in Britain thanks to the millions of GIs who spent time in this country during the war. The evidence from the Ngrams shows that 'think' appeared half a century earlier than 'thing'. This is an entirely separate point from the usage argument I have given. Each thus confirms the other. We have two distinct lines of argument, each independent of the other and both pointing to the same conclusion: that 'think' came first.

Of course, some people will say, 'Even if it was 'think' originally, 'thing' is now widely used and is just as valid'.
Well, I can only reply that 'think' makes better sense and yields a more meaningful expression and that in the end we have to set our own usage at a level which seems good to each of us.


----------



## Forero

I have no idea which version was first, but Wandle's post gives me an opportunity to clarify some things that I think give credence to the _thing_ version as a valid way to express an idea:


Some of us have heard the _thing_ version many times but find the _think_ version unfamiliar and strange.
I understand a person can have a think, but I have never heard of a think coming except as part of the expression in question.
The _think_ version, at least in my variety of English, is on roughly the same level as "Who'd a thunk it?", but the the _thing_ version is no more "informal" than the use of _you've got_ in any other context.
The _think_ version is a play on a particular word, but "You've got another thing coming" means simply "You have a surprise coming"/"You are in for a surprise"/"You have a rude awakening ahead of you." It is equally compatible with _think_, _believe_, _imagine_, _presume_, _suppose_, _expect_, _plan_, etc.
The "thing" in question is anything that will set you straight/correct the disconnect between your attitude (or cognition, or executive planning processes) and the real world.  It would not, in general, come from merely rethinking something.

Does the _think_ version mean exclusively "You are about to change your mind", or can it also mean "You need to change your mind"?


----------



## Miss Julie

Glasguensis said:


> I'm afraid it is. Check Chambers, Merriam Webster, Wiktionary, etc. It's usually used in an expression like "I'll need to have a think about it".



Maybe it's a regional thing, because I have NEVER heard anyone say "I'll need to have a think about it." It's always "I'll need *to think* about it."


----------



## JulianStuart

Forero said:


> I have no idea which version was first, but Wandle's post gives me an opportunity to clarify some things that I think give credence to the _thing_ version as a valid way to express an idea:
> 
> Some of us have heard the _thing_ version many times but find the _think_ version unfamiliar and strange.
> I understand a person can have a think, but I have never heard of a think coming except as part of the expression in question.
> The _think_ version, at least in my variety of English, is on roughly the same level as "Who'd a thunk it?", but the the _thing_ version is no more "informal" than the use of _you've got_ in any other context.
> The _think_ version is a play on a particular word, but "You've got another thing coming" means simply "You have a surprise coming"/"You are in for a surprise"/"You have a rude awakening ahead of you." It is equally compatible with _think_, _believe_, _imagine_, _presume_, _suppose_, _expect_, _plan_, etc.
> The "thing" in question is anything that will set you straight/correct the disconnect between your attitude (or cognition, or executive planning processes) and the real world.  It would not, in general, come from merely rethinking something.
> Does the _think_ version mean exclusively "You are about to change your mind", or can it also mean "You need to change your mind"?



It means something will be made clear to you that will make you change your mind/understand - you will have to rethink your position in light of something you will learn or understand.

The ngrams show clearly that,_ in the google scanned published works database_, the think version came much earlier, originally in AmE and is far more common that the thing version (which is more recent and growing in use).


----------



## pob14

Miss Julie said:


> *Another thing* just means "something else."
> 
> *Think* is not a noun (at least not in the U.S.), so "another think" does not make sense (to me).


I'm amazed that you're on the wrong  side of this, Julie, because I lived in Chicago until I was almost thirty, and all my life in Illinois, and I've never in my life heard "another _thing_ coming." I've read it, on the Internet, but never heard it come out of a person's mouth. (Or maybe I did, but I heard what I wanted to hear!)

Edit:  Of course it's very rare to hear "I'll have a think . . ."  That's not the same at all, in my opinion.  "You've got another think coming" is wordplay, pure and simple.

Forero:  It means "you get another chance to think about it, and maybe get it right this time."

Side note: I'm currently rehearsing in _Father of the Bride_, and the father in that play says, "you've got another _guess_ coming," neatly sidestepping the controversy!


----------



## Miss Julie

In my experience, people say either _You've got another thin*g* coming_ or _You'd better thin*k* again_ (or _twice_). Sorry!


----------



## pwmeek

I back Wandle in his superb summary. 

I will add that in the US we *do* say "...another think coming". In fact I would assume that someone had mis-heard the phrase if I heard them say "...another thing coming", or that it was "lazy speech" to avoid the effort of the double "k" sound.

It only makes sense if you are asserting that the faulty results of the first "think" (...if you think...) are going to require another one of the same.


----------



## JulianStuart

Miss Julie said:


> In my experience, people say either _You've got another thin*g* coming_ or _You'd better thin*k* again_ (or _twice_). Sorry!



How very modern of you 

The Ngrams show that the phrases "have a think" and "have another think" have been around for quite some time, both in AmE and BrE, establishing a usage for think as a noun.  One of the citations suggests that "have a thought about X" means to have a single thought, while "have a think about" implies a session of thinking, and more than one thought - perhaps that distinction is why "think" became a noun, since it serves a different purpose/meaning than "thought".  This might extend to a nuance difference between "to think about X" as being vaguer, and possibly less purposeful, than "to have a think about X"?


----------



## ribran

After reading this thread, I need to go out and have myself a good, long cry. 

I'm a *thing*​ man myself.


----------



## jmichaelm

My mother's combination of discipline and enunciation left me with no doubt that I was hearing, "You've got another think coming (kiddo)!" She almost always added "kiddo" to the end of that phrase - a sort of verbal twist of the knife.

I do wonder why there has been no poll created for the forum on this topic. Gathering statistics seems in order to me.


----------



## Hau Ruck

Miss Julie said:


> Maybe it's a regional thing, because I have NEVER heard anyone say "I'll need to have a think about it." It's always "I'll need *to think* about it."



I believe this is more of a BrE thing.  I have quite a few BrE speaking friends that say this.  Drives me nuts.


----------



## JulianStuart

jmichaelm said:


> I do wonder why there has been no poll created for the forum on this topic. Gathering statistics seems in order to me.



The Ngram data is about as good as you'll get - even if it is restricted by what Google has in its database and how it curates it.  It is, of course, restricted to what has been published and not "what people say today" - a poll for that would take a lot of work to provide much of substance!


----------



## JulianStuart

Filsmith said:


> I believe this is more of a BrE thing.  I have quite a few BrE speaking friends that say this.  Drives me nuts.



Based on the Ngram data again, the frequency in BrE published works is about 3x higher than for AmE works - supporting your impression of what people say being based on their side of the Atlantic....


----------



## Hau Ruck

JulianStuart said:


> Based on the Ngram data again, the frequency in BrE published works is about 3x higher than for AmE works - supporting your impression of what people say being based on their side of the Atlantic....



I'm surprised it's not even higher than that. I can honestly say I've never heard one native AE speaker use it that way. 
The good news is, that in 20-30 years, language will be so globalized that we will have less of these diversities that "separate us".


----------



## JulianStuart

Filsmith said:


> I'm surprised it's not even higher than that. I can honestly say I've never heard one native AE speaker use it that way.
> The good news is, that in 20-30 years, language will be so globalized that we will have less of these diversities that "separate us".



Interestingly, in AmE ,and back directly on topic(!), "have another think" is way more frequent than "have a think" (through 1990) but in BrE, they are about the same as each other, although, as noted, more common than "have a think" is in AmE. (not easy to plot the same phrase in AmE and BrE on the same ngraph  )


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

Forero said:


> I understand a person can have a think, but I have never heard of a think coming except as part of the expression in question.


Are you /(is Forero) the first to air this point within the thread?


----------



## panjandrum

I enjoy dipping into this thread from time to time.
Regular dippers will know that the thread is never going to come to any kind of conclusion.
There are those of us in the right who know that "think" is correct, and there are other, lesser mortals, who have come to believe that the erroneous, misheard "thing" version is correct.


----------



## Hau Ruck

I'd not take anything away from either "think" or "thing"; both seem fine and grand.

Even the British band Judas Priest believes in "thing" as "You've Got Another Thing Comin" gives evidence to.  

I've also heard an interview with the band in which one of the members said he had to give something a "good think".  

As far as I can tell, both are just fine in all the contexts I've seen on this massive thread.


----------



## Loob

panjandrum said:


> I enjoy dipping into this thread from time to time.
> Regular dippers will know that the thread is never going to come to any kind of conclusion.
> There are those of us in the right who know that "think" is correct, and there are other, lesser mortals, who have come to believe that the erroneous, misheard "thing" version is correct.


 Thank you for the belly-laugh, panj!

Oops, I'd better say something on topic....

Erm...  It doesn't matter!  Those who say _thing_ [or _think_] will carry on saying _thing_ [or _think_]!  

I'm sure someone -probably panj - has made that point before.


----------



## snworks

snworks said:


> The thing that is coming is some sort of punishment of physical violence.



Oops - should be   "...punishment OR physical violence."


----------



## JulianStuart

panjandrum said:


> I enjoy dipping into this thread from time to time.
> Regular dippers will know that the thread is never going to come to any kind of conclusion.
> There are those of us in the right who know that "think" is correct, and there are other, lesser mortals, who have come to believe that the erroneous, misheard "thing" version is correct.



We can support our assertion that the "think" version came into being first.  We could "care less" (sic, sick) about a decision on whether a subsequent "mistake" has become so perpetuated as to be deemed also "correct"    Such things have happened before, I think


----------



## ribran

JulianStuart said:


> Such things have happened before, I think *thing*



Sorry, Julian, you misheard it. It's *thing*​.


----------



## JulianStuart

I'll definitely have to thing about that one.  I'm only convinced when I see good datas


----------



## trastu

If I may just add my thoughts on this, for what they're worth!  I always thought the expression was '..... you've got another *think* coming'.  My Mother always used this expression and I have never heard it used with 'thing' before. 

Judging by this thread there are a lot of people who say 'thing' as opposed to 'think' and I am not saying that one or the other is correct or incorrect but for me, personally, to say 'If you think ........ then you've got another *thing* coming' still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever despite having read through the majority (not all, I will admit) of the posts.


----------



## PaulQ

I don’t know if the construction was ever used in America, but in the UK,

*Irate parent:* “You’re covered in mud!”
*Errant son:* “A horse pushed me over.”
*IP(a):* “A horse! I’ll *horse *you, m’lad!”
*IP(b):* “Pushed you over? I’ll give you *pushed you over*! Those clothes were clean!”
*IP(b)(i)* “Pushed you over? *I’ll push you over*! Those clothes were clean!”

These idiomatic uses are almost incomprehensible but express the annoyance and, possibly, a threat of physical violence. So great is the annoyance that correct words evade (or are dissimulated as if to evade) the speaker. 

However, they do demonstrate:

[Correct use of “A”; questionable use of “A”] i.e.  the second A is not necessarily used correctly.

Hence, the phrase that expresses annoyance, “If you *think *that you have another *think *coming!”


----------



## pwmeek

PaulQ, those all (with the possible exception of (b)(i) ) seem idiomatic to me. (AE)


----------



## PaulQ

Thanks pwm, I suspect parents are the same the world over.


----------



## normfromga

I think that either is acceptable, in the right setting:

"If you think he is going to win easily, you will have another think coming."

"If he expects an easy win, he will have another thing coming."

[I had always heard only the former expression, but that is a moot point...or is it "mute"...or ....]


----------



## Sparky Malarky

Well, I don't even hope to convince anyone (though I'm convinced the correct word is *think*!), but I thought some of you would enjoy this column by the Word Detective.  http://www.word-detective.com/2011/12/18/another-thing-think-coming/


----------



## JulianStuart

Sparky Malarky said:


> Well, I don't even hope to convince anyone (though I'm convinced the correct word is *think*!), but I thought some of you would enjoy this column by the Word Detective.  http://www.word-detective.com/2011/12/18/another-thing-think-coming/



The published literature clearly shows that the _think_ version was  the original one (see the links in post 204).  The issue seems to boil down to whether the thing  version is used frequently enough to constitute a second "correct" usage!


----------



## PaulQ

If I ever saw a thread that needed a poll, this is it.


----------



## David_Porta

Julian, loved the link because it supports "think" and was fun.
Paul, WRF has polls?
To all who think it is not think (including my 86 year old Mom), you have another think coming.


----------



## PaulQ

David_Porta said:


> Paul, WRF has polls?


Vbulletin has an ability to have polls. Whether WRF has polls is an entirely different question.  However, in view of Sparkey's link, if we had one, everyone would be correct except those who voted 'thing'.


----------



## mplsray

PaulQ said:


> Vbulletin has an ability to have polls. Whether WRF has polls is an entirely different question.  However, in view of Sparkey's link, if we had one, everyone would be correct except those who voted 'thing'.



Just because "think" came first does not make it the only correct choice. To believe that is to fall into the etymological fallacy. Evan Morris, the Word Detective, is himself well aware of this fallacy--he mentions it here, for example--and did not, as far as I can see, intend to say which version was correct. Rather, he was dealing with the question of which version came first.


----------



## wandle

The Word Detective does give a clear opinion. His last word on the question, in the above link, is:


> Substituting “thing” for that second “think” ruins that balance and really doesn’t make any sense. You can’t say “another thing” if there wasn’t a first “thing.”


The real giveaway here is that those who say 'thing' in the second part, still say 'think' in the first part of the saying. 
Why is that?  Why do they start by saying 'If you think that..'?

If it makes sense to say 'you have another thing coming', meaning 'something unpleasant is on its way to you', why is it not used in other contexts?
Why do they not say: 'You'd better not do that, or you've got another thing coming'? 
Why not: 'Get out of here now, or you'll have another thing coming'?
Why not: 'Give me my money, or you've got another thing coming'?
Why not: 'You'd better watch out, I heard the boss talking about you, you've got another thing coming'?


----------



## David_Porta

wandle said:


> Why do they not say: 'You'd better not do that, or you've got another thing coming'?
> Why not: 'Get out of here now, or you'll have another thing coming'?
> Why not: 'Give me my money, or you've got another thing coming'?
> Why not: 'You'd better watch out, I heard the boss talking about you, you've got another thing coming'?



Excellent point.


----------



## mplsray

I still think that Evan Morris was interested only in the etymology of the expression, not on the question of whether the "thing" version was correct. When he says that the "thing" version doesn't make sense, that is an argument against that being the original version, _but it says nothing about the correctness of the expression itself_. Idioms, after all, don't "make sense" when analyzed according to their constituent parts.


----------



## David_Porta

mplsray said:


> ... whether the "thing" version was correct. _.._. Idioms, after all, don't "make sense" when analyzed according to their constituent parts.



That amounts to declaring that the idea of a "correct" version is meaningless.

What is this thread about, anyway?

Looking back at the first post, I find

//
Is the expression "you've got another *think* coming"?  or "another *thing *coming"?
//

Obviously, both expressions exist. They are not the same.

The question posed suggests one expression: "Is the expression...?"

A reply consistent with that wording would begin, "The expression is..."

The premise of this thread demands a choice be made. That implies a basis for choosing.


----------



## mplsray

It is my opinion that the expressions mean _precisely_ the same thing. They are rather rude ways of telling another person that he holds a wrong opinion or belief. This is why they are so often mistaken for one another by people who are not aware that there are two versions, so that they mistakenly hear the version they are unfamiliar with as the version they themselves use.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I agree with Mplsray.  There's no need for us to 'choose', as though our choosing would make any difference.  The expressions mean the same thing.  For me the interest in the thread comes from learning about their derivation, and how they come to co-exist.


----------



## ewie

> "The expression is either _thing_ or _think_ ~ you choose"


 *is* a choice.


----------



## velisarius

Growing up in England , if I was told " If you think that you've got another think coming", I always thought there was a veiled threat, such as "something nasty will happen to you, which will  really give you something to think about". It might even warn of a clip round the ear. Just joking.


----------



## Hau Ruck

I love that this thread just goes on and on.  

I'd agree that both "think" and "thing" should be accepted.  Obviously there are equal parts of people that feel strongly about each.  I'd say there's great evidence to support both.

I've always assumed that it was "think" in the U.K. and "thing" in the U.S.  The only thing that still troubles me, is why a British band would title their most popular song, "You've Got Another _Thing_ Coming".  I'd love to hear an interview with them explaining that.


----------



## JulianStuart

"I could care less" is now (sadly, say many) _quite commonly_ used to mean "I don't care at all"  - does that make it "correct"?  While logically an error, its percolation through the English-speaking (but not necessarily logically-thinking) population has gained it a significant score in usage* tables, although only starting in 1960 or so.

To me, this is analogous to the question of whether "thing" is "correct" our current discussion - correctness often being based on frequency of usage.  The "think" version had already won out over its competitor "You've got another guess coming" well before the "thing" version saw the light of print, strongly supporting the original notion that the phrase was used to tell the (incompletely informed) listener they were wrong in their current thinking/guessing.  The imprecise enunciation of the final consonant led to its (unthinking ) repetition by people hearing it for the first time and adding it to their expression vocabulary - quite possibly in the same way that the "n't" at the end of "couldn't care less" may have not been heard clearly when listeners heard that expression for the first time. Then the expression spread in the altered version among those (who may or may not have tried to parse it but) who wanted to use it in the same sense that (they thought) they had heard it used.

The likelihood that the people who favour "thing" also favour "could care less" is quite low, so I anticipate a significant fraction of thing sayers will say "thing" is correct but "could care less" is incorrect - simply based on (their perception of) frequency of usage? (You can probably tell I have never been convinced by the rationalizations of the logic of the "thing" version)

*Many of the hits in ngram viewer are from articles/books decrying its usage, so straight ngram numbers are consequently inflated


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Has anyone suggested an educational or social split in these uses?  I've done a straw poll of the university graduates I've been in touch with recently and they all (about 8) went for 'thing'.  They were all BE speakers.


----------



## JulianStuart

Thomas Tompion said:


> Has anyone suggested an educational or social split in these uses?  I've done a straw poll of the university graduates I've been in touch with recently and they all (about 8) went for 'thing'.  They were all BE speakers.



The think and thing versions look like they are on course, in BrE published works, to become even in usage by about 2020.  It is not uncommon for trends like these to follow age demographics - younger folks are more inclined to adopt new things (and the older folks whinge), but it's hard to separate that from either the general acceptability of the new thing, or the dimensions you raise about socioeconomic situation and educational status.  Someone needs to do a properly conducted opinionnaire


----------



## David_Porta

JulianStuart said:


> It is not uncommon for trends like these to follow age demographics - younger folks are more inclined to adopt new things



And then they become old folks and everything old is new again.


----------



## JulianStuart

David_Porta said:


> And then they become old folks and everything old is new again.



But, more importantly, they then feel they can be authoritative about what is correct or acceptable


----------



## timpeac

Thomas Tompion said:


> Has anyone suggested an educational or social split in these uses?  I've done a straw poll of the university graduates I've been in touch with recently and they all (about 8) went for 'thing'.  They were all BE speakers.


Back in the day when this thread started I did a straw poll too of BE speakers (simply because that was where I lived) and I didn't come across a single "thing"er. Most of them, as I did on first finding out this was even an issue, found "thing" bizarre.


----------



## Rickenbacker4001

This is an eggcorn of the first order. Of course it is "think." As in, "If you thought I'd help you here, you've got another think coming" (e.g. "think again").
It's in the same colloquial sense as something like "I'm going to sit down and have a think on that."

The phrase is deliberately ungrammatical to emphasize its point. "Another *thing* coming" is nonsensical, and makes me cringe.


----------



## ewie

Rickenbacker4001 said:


> This is an eggcorn of the first order. Of course it is "think." As in, "If you thought I'd help you here, you've got another think coming" (e.g. "think again").
> It's in the same colloquial sense as something like "I'm going to sit down and have a think on that."
> 
> The phrase is deliberately ungrammatical to emphasize its point. "Another *thing* coming" is nonsensical, and makes me cringe.


Welcome to the forum, Rickenbacker
No-one would expect you to read _all_ the previous 272 posts, but to have read at least _a few_ of them would have been a gesture on your part.  There are a very large number of people out there who find the _think_ version just as cringeworthy


----------



## Mezzofanti

> "There are a very large number of people out there who find the _think_ version just as cringeworthy"



Ewie, the previous 272 posts have clearly established that the original version was "think" and that "think" remains in very common use - there can be no possible reason for anyone to "cringe" at it, or even to wince which I expect is what you mean. The "thing" version, it has been clearly established, is a later corruption of the original version, but has now become so widespread that whether it is still an error or has now become a received use depends on your point of view. But there can be no doubt whatever that the "think" version never  has been an error and still isn't one.


----------



## ewie

Hullo Mezzo.  (1) I must admit it's a while since _I_ read all the previous posts ... (2) ... so I can't remember what the Collective Consciousness discovered about the True And Authentic Origins of the phrase, if anything*.  (3) I never claimed that the _think_ version was an error: I was merely pointing out to our latest dedicated _think_er that (probably) as many people cringe at that as cringe at the _thing_ version, just because that's what they've always used themselves

*Perhaps you could point me at the post which gives the definitive answer


----------



## JulianStuart

Mezzofanti said:


> "think" remains in very common use - there can be no possible reason for anyone to "cringe" at it.



Except for those who do not accept, based on their experience, that their version is wrong and when they hear the one they think is wrong/different/incorrect/unfamiliar etc they "cringe = experience an inward shiver of embarrassment* or disgust" or "wince = give a slight involuntary grimace or flinch due to pain or distress" depending on the balance of embarassment/disgust/embarassment/pain the phrase evokes   * embarassment possibly only if they have read all 272 posts and viewed the ngrams


----------



## Andygc

ewie said:


> so I can't remember what the Collective Consciousness discovered about the True And Authentic Origins of the phrase, if anything*. ...
> ... *Perhaps you could point me at the post which gives the definitive answer


Having read a substantial proportion of the 277 posts (but not all) I think it can be concluded with certainty that if anybody thinks that this thread is going to end up discovering anything with any degree of certainty, then they have another think coming. Unless, of course, they have another thing coming instead (whatever that means).

I think that makes this the post with the definitive answer, ewie.


----------



## Rickenbacker4001

ewie said:


> Welcome to the forum, Rickenbacker
> No-one would expect you to read _all_ the previous 272 posts, but to have read at least _a few_ of them would have been a gesture on your part.  There are a very large number of people out there who find the _think_ version just as cringeworthy



OK, I admit to not having read every post, but I did read about 100 of them. I think the final answer is that this is a phrase best avoided. Kind of like "there are a number," or "there are a few." Sorry, but I'll never be convinced that the singular article can be preceded by a plural verb and be anything other than ungrammatical. Yet, try writing "there is a few," and see how many people want to "correct" you. "There's a number of..." seems to be a bit more palatable, maybe because "number" is so clearly singular.
Anyway, all colloquial phrases of which I'm aware have their origins in something meaningful and often quite literate. The "thing" version of the saying cannot be parsed in a way that sheds any light on an original meaning. It's inexplicable, other than as a mis-hearing of the "think" version.
So, walla! Let's not be pre-Madonnas, ecksedra. It'll be a warm Febyewary in the Artic before I start spelling things the way I hear them.


----------



## David_Porta

*I* cringed in my soul when I discovered that my 86 year old mom uses "another 'thing' coming."

I first encountered the phrase, "another think coming," in Marvel comic book dialogue in the mid 1960s, written by Stan Lee (I think it was in the pages of Sgt. Fury and His Howling Commandos), and Stan was a New York Jew, writing lowbrow. "Ya got anudder think comin', buddy!" Something like.


----------



## ewie

David_Porta said:


> *I* cringed in my soul when I discovered that my 86 year old mom uses "another 'thing' coming."


_>sigh<_ Even our mums can't be relied on to talk like what they ought to.


----------



## JustKate

I concede that "think" is a lot more logical, but I must also point out that I've heard "thing" far more often, including coming out of my own mouth. Sorry if that makes anybody cringe, but there you go. Like idioms always make sense?


----------



## Glasguensis

Most idioms which don't make sense do not do so for the same reason as the thing version - the origin has been lost, either because the phrase has been corrupted or because word usage has changed so that the original meaning of the phrase is not clear to a modern speaker.


----------



## JustKate

I agree, but the thing about idioms is that whatever their etymology, it doesn't matter whether they're logical or illogical: You either accept them or you don't, because you can't change them. If _thing_ becomes so dominant that _think_ sounds incorrect to most people - and I'm not saying this has happened quite yet, but it certainly could happen - logic is meaningless. 

The strength of idioms comes from the fact that everybody knows what they mean, so much so that the individual words no longer really matter. Which is why we still talk about a "bellwether" even when most people have not the slightest idea what a wether is, much less why one would wear a bell, and why an awful lot of people spell it "bellweather." 

The phrase "You've got another think coming" does not convey the idea that "This person wants me to *think* some more because he believes my original thought is wrong." What it conveys is "This person is saying I'm mistaken, and he also wants me to know that I've irritated him quite a bit." Whether _think_ or _thing_ is used is therefore immaterial to most listeners. What they'll say is the word they're used to hearing. And what I'm used to hearing is _thing_. I had never even noticed the _think_ version (I must have encountered it, but I never noticed it even once) until I started visiting grammar sites and found out what a hot-button topic this was.

Edit: By the way, I do often hear the "you've got another thing/think coming" part of the idiom separate from the "If you think that" part. For example, I've heard things like, "If you believe that, you've got another thing coming." What that indicates to me is that for some people the connection between _think_ and _think/thing_ is...well, not very strong.


----------



## panjandrum

There is no significant difference in sound between "thing coming" and "think coming", especially if there is already in your head a natural preference for one or the other.

So, if you have always believed it was think, then that's what you hear, no matter what is said.
It's also what you say.  Your hearers, of course, will hear either think or thing, depending on their prior belief.

The difference only comes to light when the expression is written down.
As it is mostly a spoken expression, the opportunity for adverse reaction is limited ... except, of course, in this thread


----------



## JustKate

Here and wherever grammar geeks gather!

That's a good point that people will usually hear what they're used to, no matter what's actually said.


----------



## JulianStuart

Just to note that this thread is the easy Gold Medal winner by 55 replies (as of this post)more than the thread taking the Silver . But that one has been dormant for 5 years.

Back on topic, I don't associate this with irritation on the speaker's part - although perhaps frustration that the listener is stupid and seeing the whole think wrong


----------



## Glasguensis

As far as I remember I have only ever heard this expression being used to mean that the person being addressed is sadly mistaken. Sometimes the person using the phrase is annoyed, but certainly not always - it's even used when the person talking isn't even impacted. Eg. If you think the police are going to believe that, you've got another thin* coming.


----------



## n0lqu

Having read the ENTIRE thread, here's my summary/opinion/interpretation of what people have been saying:


Currently, BOTH variants can and should be accepted, even when one is clearly WRONG. Please try to keep your cringing to a minimum when you hear the WRONG variant written or uttered in your presence. It's simply good manners, and there are enough WRONG people that they just might gang up on you. It's unknown what percentage of the world has it RIGHT and what percentage has it WRONG -- based on the number of people arguing both sides in this thread, it's probably closer to 50/50 than you think -- but you're sure almost everyone says it RIGHT, and only a few oddballs say it WRONG. There's a chance British English speakers are more "likely" to use think, whereas American English speakers are more likely to use "thing", but that could also be pure hogwash.
The "thinkists" and the "thingists" are usually convinced their way is correct. In most cases, they grew up hearing it their way all their lives, and often didn't even realize there was another way until later in life.
Most likely, they actually HAVE heard it said the wrong way, but they didn't realize it because the RIGHT way and the WRONG way often sound almost exactly alike, so their mind fills in the way they expect to hear it.  The sound of "think coming" is a double hard kay sound between the words, and unless a person specifically enunciates both kay sounds, the "kay" of "think" gets lost, making it sound like "thing". Hence, a person saying "think coming" without overemphasizing the first kay will usually be heard by a thingist as "thing coming", and conversely "thing coming" will be heard as "think coming" by a thinkist with the missing kay mentally filled in. They won't even be aware of the difference. Note that in some dialects (i.e. with drawls), the difference can be obvious.
Both usages go back over a century. The earliest print mention of "think" was 1898, I think, versus the earliest print mention of "thing" appears slightly later, about 1906, making it appear "think" came first. That's not much of a time difference, though, less than a decade, and it could easily be people were already commonly using both variants around that time and "think" just randomly got the first mention.
Both variants are understood to have virtually the same meaning (your thought/belief is about to be changed by external forces/circumstances), though perhaps "thing" is seen as being more threatening, whereas "think" is more by way of warning. Might this be part of the reason a person sees it one way or the other, depending on in what context they first heard it -- i.e. a person who originally heard it from a parent who was threatening something heard it as a mysterious "thing" but someone who heard it more as a warning heard a more thoughtful "think?"

Bearing in mind BOTH variants can and should be accepted, even when one is clearly WRONG, here are arguments that have been given for why one is RIGHT and the other is WRONG.  I'm sure I missed some good ones; these seem to be the strongest and/or the ones I can remember off the top of my head:
*
ThinGists - "If you think you're going to get away with it, you've got another THING coming!"*

The second part is refering to a noun, which "thing" clearly is. "Think" is not, and even if it were it sounds weird and nobody uses it as a noun. _[Counter: Think actually *is* a noun, even if not that commonly used as one. Please consult your local dictionary.]_
The phrase is usually used as a threat, i.e. a Mother threatening a child. As such, an unnamed "thing" that is coming leaves a lot to the imagination and is much more powerful/terrible than "think". This is analogous to when a parent says "I'll give you to the count of three... one... two... " and never needs to get to the "three" because the child doesn't want to find out what unimaginable thing will happen at "three" and complies._[Counter: It has more to do with the tone of voice it's said as to whether it's threatening or not, rather than the specific word... believe me, "think" can be just as threatening as "thing" if shouted by a big angry person; maybe even more so if they enunciate both guttural hard KAY sounds. You might even get a face full of spit as a bonus!]_
Although the phrase usually has "think" in the first part, we also hear it with other synonyms and similar words; the "thing" interpretation still makes sense in those cases, whereas the "think" thing crumbles._[Counter: The phrase is almost universally said with "think" in the first part, variations with other words are rare and are probably said only by people who totally missed the think/think duality to begin with.]_
*ThinKists - "If you think you're going to get away with it, you've got another THINK coming!"*

The duality of THINK in the first part, coupled with THINK in the second part, makes this clever wordplay and is the whole reason the saying was memorable to begin with. _[Counter: That was something someone got clever with later on and is beside the point. Plus, I sometimes hear it with other words instead of THINK in the first part, so that duality just isn't very important.]_
The word "think" CAN be used as a noun, such as "I'm going to have to have a think about it," making it gramatically as correct as using "thing", but logically it makes more sense because it's saying that the "thinking" you used to have is about to change, because a new thought is about to hit you -- whether you want it to or not. The fact that a lot of people don't commonly hear "think" used as a noun doesn't make it any less of one.  Dictionaries will confirm think's nounness. _[Counter: It doesn't really matter if "technically" it is a noun, nobody uses it that way, it sounds weird, and hence "another think coming" sounds extra weird and ungrammatical.]_
How can there be "another thing" coming, when there wasn't a first thing?! _[Counter: That's what makes the coming thing extra scary, the ambiguity. You can think you know what it is, but it will be a whole other, and worse, thing than what you think. The first thing is implied.]_
We understand why so many people say "thing" instead of "think" -- it's easy in normal use for the extra KAY sound to become lost. _[Counter: There is no extra KAY sound, it sounds weird if you try to put it in, not to mention slowing down the delivery of the phrase with an unnecessary double KAY sound requiring a glottal stop in between.]_
Currently, the earliest printed sample of the phrase supports "think" as being the origin. _[Counter: "Thing" goes back almost as far. If the time difference were half a century or more, you'd have an argument. Less than a decade? Hah! You've got another thing coming!]_
*Arguments common to BOTH sides:*

EVERYONE I KNOW SAYS IT LIKE I DO! Whoever says it the other way is a huge minority, they should get it RIGHT and stop being WRONG.
My way makes way more gramatical and analytical sense. The other way doesn't.

For myself, I honestly don't remember which method I learned growing up. When I first remember learning there were two variants, I discovered I was a thinkist -- it made sense to me, and I started cringing whenever I heard "thing." Thanks to this thread, I will cringe less and resist the urge to correct anyone. I can't promise to always be successful in my resistance, though.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

I'd never heard of another thin_k_ coming (what?) until I read this thread.
There you go.
Needless to say, I shall stick with my things.


----------



## Cagey

n0lqu said:


> Having read the ENTIRE thread, here's my summary/opinion/interpretation of what people have been saying:
> 
> 
> Currently, BOTH variants can and should be accepted, even when one is clearly WRONG.
> < < Clipped. > >
> 
> For myself, I honestly don't remember which method I learned growing up. When I first remember learning there were two variants, I discovered I was a thinkist -- it made sense to me, and I started cringing whenever I heard "thing." Thanks to this thread, I will cringe less and resist the urge to correct anyone. I can't promise to always be successful in my resistance, though.


Thank you, *n01qu*, for taking the time to write this extremely even-handed and useful summary.


----------



## pwmeek

Cagey said:


> Thank you, *n01qu*, for taking the time to write this extremely even-handed and useful summary.



Oh, and by the way, Welcome to the forum.


----------



## n0lqu

Cagey said:


> Thank you, *n01qu*, for taking the time to write this extremely even-handed and useful summary.





pwmeek said:


> Oh, and by the way, Welcome to the forum.



Thanks! When I saw newer people were starting to repeat a lot of what was already discussed, I thought some summarizing would be of benefit. I really enjoyed the discussions and hope people will go back and read them over, but if they don't have time for that perhaps my summary can help bring them up to speed quickly.


----------



## Copyright

n0lqu said:


> Thanks! When I saw newer people were starting to repeat a lot of what was already discussed, I thought some summarizing would be of benefit. I really enjoyed the discussions and hope people will go back and read them over, but if they don't have time for that perhaps my summary can help bring them up to speed quickly.


Just to make sure they even have a chance of finding it, we put a note and a link in the first post of this thread.


----------



## Einstein

Pedro y La Torre said:


> I'd never heard of another thin_k_ coming (what?) until I read this thread.
> There you go.
> Needless to say, I shall stick with my things.


There you go! And I'd never heard of "another thing coming" (what? like a slap in the face?) until I read this thread. I must have a think about that.

I think the most important point in *nOlqu*'s post is:


> Most likely, they actually HAVE heard it said the wrong way, but they didn't realize it because the RIGHT way and the WRONG way often sound almost exactly alike, so their mind fills in the way they expect to hear it. The sound of "think coming" is a double hard kay sound between the words, and unless a person specifically enunciates both kay sounds, the "kay" of "think" gets lost, making it sound like "thing". Hence, a person saying "think coming" without overemphasizing the first kay will usually be heard by a thingist as "thing coming", and conversely "thing coming" will be heard as "think coming" by a thinkist with the missing kay mentally filled in. They won't even be aware of the difference. Note that in some dialects (i.e. with drawls), the difference can be obvious.


This is true in so many disputes about right and wrong forms. Often users of one form (maybe the less official one, the one that comes more instinctively) are simply unaware that another form exists because the brain adjusts what they hear, modifying it to something familiar. This even happens in writing: those who write "strait-jacket" wince when they see "straight-jacket", while the "straight-jacketers" brush aside "strait-jacket" as a spelling mistake or are just not spelling-conscious enough to notice it. The same applies to "free rein" (a riding term) and "free reign" or "chaise longue" and "chaise lounge". Especially now, with  the internet, the minority form rapidly gains ground until it catches up with the original and can no longer be considered "wrong". No use losing sleep over it.


----------



## commonsenc

I you THINK I'd let it go you're mad, you've got another THINK coming.
put the phrase in context, it is suggesting that you rethink your position.

go to dictionary.com so that you may get the definition and usage of the word "THING".
if you have "another THING coming" then what was the first "THING" that you received?, and what is the other
"THING" that is coming?, and when will it get here?



fenixpollo said:


> I disagree.  I think that this expression with "thing" is just as meaningful as it is with "think."
> 
> On the other hand, "I could care less" means the opposite of "I couldn't care less;" and the idiom about cake just strikes me as the same sentence with the phrases reversed.
> 
> Until someone proves that the version with "think" is somehow better, more original or more logical, I _don't_ stand corrected.


----------



## Chasint

I am a 'thinkist' born and bred. It seems that 'thingists' are gaining ground recently (but still in the minority) if we look at the following Google Ngram.

Search terms English - 1900-2000 - smoothing 3
http://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...00&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=

I think it will be sad if the inventive and amusing 'another think coming' loses out to the rather dull and uninspiring 'another thing coming'.


----------



## fenixpollo

commonsenc said:


> I you THINK I'd let it go you're mad, you've got another THINK coming.
> put the phrase in context, it is suggesting that you rethink your position.
> 
> go to dictionary.com so that you may get the definition and usage of the word "THING".
> if you have "another THING coming" then what was the first "THING" that you received?, and what is the other
> "THING" that is coming?, and when will it get here?


Since I made my initial posts in this thread 6 years ago, I've come to several realizations:
- I was excessively indignant. I realize now that it's not about being right. In my defense, I felt like the "think-ists" in this thread were calling my way 'dumb' or 'illogical'.
- I was unnecessarily confrontational. I have purposely left my posts unedited, however, to avoid disrupting the flow of the responses.
- I was annoyingly categorical. I was so convinced that there was one right answer and I used words like "definitely". That was definitely narrow-minded and wrong of me. 

I now understand that both versions of the expression are correct, because both are used. If the "think" version makes more sense to you, by all means use it. I'll keep using the "thing" version, because it's the version I was taught and the one used by everyone I interact with. I won't be judgmental nor will I correct anyone if I hear them use the "think" version. I hope you'll do the same.


----------



## Einstein

fenixpollo said:


> I now understand that both versions of the expression are correct, because both are used.


We should probably abandon the word "correct" in discussions of this kind and simply say that no one should be shot for using either form (I haven't got a gun anyway). What intrigues me is that there seem to be areas where users of one form have never heard the other form. Probably it's partly what *n01qu* says - that people have heard the other form without noticing the difference - but it may also be geographical. Most of the thinGers seem to be American, while most of the thinKers seem to be British.

I have a relative in the UK who was in her 20s before she realised that people were saying "If all's well" and not "fools well". She had certainly not heard other people say "fools well", but she had it in her head that it was the normal expression (she didn't understand it but assumed it had some obscure origin) and so that's what she thought she heard.

PS This discussion seems to have aroused as many emotions as the ones about "Just because...".


----------



## Chasint

Yes, it took me a long while to discover that the phrase I often used: 'communal garden' was in fact 'common or garden'. I was very embarrassed when this was pointed out to me.

I believe that the 'thingists' are holding to their old, unpoetic, untenable view simply as a way of avoiding embarrassment. Surely if they were right, the expression would be "If you think that, you have a thing coming." There would be no requirement for 'another' in this phrase because there is no 'thing' that has already happened. The mysterious 'thing' would be scary enough on its own. 

On the grounds of humour, logic, poetry and semantics the only version that makes sense is "...another think coming."


----------



## velisarius

Biffo you are not alone; I used to hear in a song "no comb an' no toothbrush " and I thought it was "no communal toothbrush". I've just mentioned this thread to my daughter, who looked at me rather puzzled and said "But I thought it was 'another thing coming'." As a dyed-in-the-wool "thinker" and daughter of two British "thinkers", I regard this as a gross betrayal of family tradition. I wonder how many more "crypto-thingers" I have nurtured. Must phone my son....


----------



## timpeac

velisarius said:


> Biffo you are not alone; I used to hear in a song "no comb an' no toothbrush " and I thought it was "no communal toothbrush". I've just mentioned this thread to my daughter, who looked at me rather puzzled and said "But I thought it was 'another thing coming'." As a dyed-in-the-wool "thinker" and daughter of two British "thinkers", I regard this as a gross betrayal of family tradition. I wonder how many more "crypto-thingers" I have nurtured. Must phone my son....



Just when you think this thread has died... Following your post I've tried it out on a family member. He thinks it's "thing" and wondered what on earth I was talking about when I said surely it's "think" (and tried to explain why - a more futile exercise there does not exist, as evidenced by this thread!) So it shows that thingers are amongst us. They look like us, they talk like us but they don't "think" like us! I have a feeling some of them must be running the banking system...


----------



## JustKate

There, there. We're not so bad once you get to know us.


----------



## Chasint

JustKate said:


> There, there. We're not so bad once you get to know us.


So JK, if you are a thingist, how about my question. Would it be acceptable to you to say "If you think that you've got a thing coming."?


----------



## Forero

Biffo said:


> So JK, if you are a thingist, how about my question. Would it be acceptable to you to say "If you think that you've got a thing coming."?


My answer to this (I am also a thingist) is no (would you find this acceptable with _think_?). But the _thing_ version does fit the language:

_She's something else again._ [Was she something before? Are other people something? We don't have to know for this sentence to make sense.]
_If you hit your sister again, you're going to get it._ [We have not specified what "it" is, but we have good idea, don't we?]
_In this case I do not feel sorry for that fellow. I think he had it coming._ [I think what happened to him was something he had coming.]
_If you're counting on being home for Christmas, you've got another thing coming._ ["Another thing" = something other than being home for Christmas.]
_If you're counting on being home for Christmas, you've got another think coming._ *?* [If _think_ does not fit here, then the _thing_ version is more versatile (which does not make it necessarily better of course).]

Does this last sentence make sense to thinkists?


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

> (which does not make it necessarily better of course)


I was with you up until this point.


----------



## Chasint

Beryl from Northallerton said:


> I was with you up until this point.


That is a facile remark and does nothing to complement (or damage) Forero's important and novel argument.



Forero said:


> My answer to this (I am also a thingist) is no (would you find this acceptable with _think_?). But the _thing_ version does fit the language:
> 
> _She's something else again._ [Was she something before? Are other people something? We don't have to know for this sentence to make sense.]
> _If you hit your sister again, you're going to get it._ [We have not specified what "it" is, but we have good idea, don't we?]
> _In this case I do not feel sorry for that fellow. I think he had it coming._ [I think what happened to him was something he had coming.]
> _If you're counting on being home for Christmas, you've got another thing coming._ ["Another thing" = something other than being home for Christmas.]
> _If you're counting on being home for Christmas, you've got another think coming._ *?* [If _think_ does not fit here, then the _thing_ version is more versatile (which does not make it necessarily better of course).]
> 
> Does this last sentence make sense to thinkists?


This is a scatter-gun approach and, if you look carefully, you have shot yourself in the foot with your examples 2 and 3. I am happy to discuss how after we have dealt with the current question.



Forero said:


> My answer to this (I am also a thingist) is no (would you find this acceptable with _think_?). But the _thing_ version does fit the language:


The whole point about my argument is that the word 'another' is required in the thinkist version. For that reason the thinkist use of 'another think' makes sense.  We have a first 'think' and then another 'think'. Perfectly logical. The thingist argument as laid out by less logical thingists than you does not require the word 'another' so I was suggesting it be left out. 

However your explanation is new and deserves an answer.



Forero said:


> ...
> _If you're counting on being home for Christmas, you've got another thing coming._ ["Another thing" = something other than being home for Christmas.]
> _If you're counting on being home for Christmas, you've got another think coming._ *?* [If _think_ does not fit here, then the _thing_ version is more versatile (which does not make it necessarily better of course).]
> Does this last sentence make sense to thinkists?


This is the best (in fact the only) logical argument that has been given so far on behalf of the thingists. Your first example is plausible and you have even explained what the other 'thing' is***. I personally would not use the expression because it it isn't clear from the grammar whether the first 'thing'  is the 'counting' or the 'being home for Christmas'. When I first read it I assumed it was the 'counting' and was confused until I read your explanation.

With regard to your final question: It depends whether the thinkist  believes that "to count on something"  qualifies as a thought or not. I suppose it does but I personally would not use 'another think' here because it loses the punch and humour of the original version with the repeated 'think'. 

The flexibility argument is also an interesting one. I can agree that 'thing' allows more flexibility. However flexibility isn't a sufficient reason to justify the thingist point of view (as you have admitted). For example, let's take Shakespeare's  _A rose by any other name would smell as sweet_. It could be made more flexible by changing it to _If a thing had a name and you changed it, it would still have the same characteristics,_ but Shakespeare wouldn't be famous if he'd written like that.

NOTES
1.* ** The interesting point about providing a prior 'thing' is that by doing so so you have invalidated the arguments of almost all your fellow thingists. They seem to believe that 'another thing' refers to a mysterious threat rather than an alternative course of action.

2. I have edited this post quite a bit because when I re-read it I could see inconsistencies in my own argument.  I was thrown by finding a thingist who actually makes sense.


----------



## mancunienne girl

Biffo said:


> Yes, it took me a long while to discover that the phrase I often used: 'communal garden' was in fact 'common or garden'. I was very embarrassed when this was pointed out to me.
> 
> I believe that the 'thingists' are holding to their old, unpoetic, untenable view simply as a way of avoiding embarrassment. Surely if they were right, the expression would be "If you think that, you have a thing coming." There would be no requirement for 'another' in this phrase because there is no 'thing' that has already happened. The mysterious 'thing' would be scary enough on its own.



e
I believe that "thing" is correct, not because I am a "thingist", but because I believe that a thing, as a noun, is more likely to "come to me" than a "think" whichh wouldn't come to me, as it is a verb..........

I confess, I have used the expression, "have a good think about it", but I have done so knowing the phrase to be idiomatic rather than logical. Perhaps "have another think coming" is idiomatic also ...... but I can't see why it is more logical, or more valid than "thing." And I am not remotely embarrassed about admitting this. "If you think that, you have another "thing" coming", to me means "another bad thing will happen to me"...... far more logical than "another bad think (whatever he heck that is) coming to me". What is a bad "think", for heaven's sake????? I've had many bad thoughts, but never a bad "think!"


----------



## Chasint

mancunienne girl said:


> ...
> A. I believe that "thing" is correct, not because I am a "thingist", but because I believe that a thing, as a noun, is more likely to "come to me" than a "think" whichh wouldn't come to me, as it is a verb..........
> 
> B. ... "If you think that, you have another "thing" coming", to me means "another bad thing will happen to me"...... far more logical than "another bad think (whatever he heck that is) coming to me". What is a bad "think", for heaven's sake????? I've had many bad thoughts, but never a bad "think!"


A. 'think' is just a humorous noun meaning a thought. It's in the Wordreference dictionary. [▶*noun *_informal _an act of thinking. http://www.wordreference.com/definition/think]. It is common to hear an expression such as "a thought has just come to me".

B. No-one but you has added the word 'bad'. That is in your imagination. If the phrase was "If you think that then you have a bad thing coming" then I would agree with you but it isn't. As I see it the phrase is equivalent to:

"If you think that then you should think again" which is another common way of speaking. No-one would suggest putting 'bad' in that sentence would they?


----------



## Einstein

I've always understood it to mean "you'll soon be thinking differently".


----------



## Cagey

Biffo said:


> Beryl from Northallerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (which does not make it necessarily better of course)
> 
> 
> 
> I was with you up until this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a facile remark and does nothing to complement (or damage) Forero's important and novel argument.
> [....]
Click to expand...


This is a long thread, and just in case someone has missed it: Beryl asserted her preference for the 'thing' version a while back: #214. 

 The quoted statement above was not in opposition to Forero's argument, but simply a gently humorous assertion that she agrees with Forero's argument, but feels that the flexibility of her preferred version does indeed make it better.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Thank you very much for a superb résumé, n0lqu, and welcome to the forum.

I personally became a _thinkist_ when I heard someone utter the other option with "guess".

Best.

GS


----------



## PaulQ

After over 300 posts, I don't know whether anyone has pointed this out:

From the OED, my emphasis:





> think, n.
> colloq.
> 1.c. to have another think coming : to be greatly mistaken. Cf. to have another thing coming at thing n.1 Phrases 15.
> _1898   Syracuse (N.Y.) Standard 21 May 8/1   Conroy lives in Troy and thinks he is a corning fighter. This gentleman has another think coming._






> thing, n.1
> P15. to have another thing coming  [*arising from misapprehension of to have another think coming *at think n. 1c*]* = *to have another think coming* at think n. 1c.
> _1906   G. Wilshire Wilshire Editorials 214   Now if we should try and think up some one person who is satisfied with the existing order of things.., we would most likely have thought that we should find him in the editor of the Wall Street Journal. But if we did, then we have another thing [1904 Wilshire's Mag. think] coming._


----------



## JulianStuart

Paul,
Those provide additional support for the notion that the expression (with think) began to be used around that specific time, as suggested by the Ngrams in post #204.  The thing version didn't get into print until 60 years later...


----------



## preppie

Quick:  Someone close the thread before someone has another think about putting another thing in it.

(The last two posts close the case ! -  IMO)


----------



## lucas-sp

JulianStuart said:


> Paul,
> Those provide additional support for the notion that the expression (with think) began to be used around that specific time, as suggested by the Ngrams in post #204.  The thing version didn't get into print until 60 years later...


I really don't want to get into this, but the OED gives a mention of "another thing coming" dating from 1906 in the post you just responded to! An _8 year gap_ recorded in the OED (which, for better or for worse, isn't a slang dictionary or a dictionary of spoken language) isn't convincing evidence for either side's priority. The reason I emphasize "a dictionary of spoken language" is that it seems, here more than ever, the ambiguity of the spoken "another think/g coming" creates a _lot_ of problems. In particular, the precedence of a certain transcription wouldn't exhaustively demonstrate the precedence of a certain way of saying the phrase. (Look at how "think"-ers have raised, unknowingly, "thing"-ers. It's entirely possible that the phrase started out as "thing," then was understood as "think" by another group, then was transcribed that way by a member of that other group.)

And while I'm sticking my nose where it doesn't belong... Biffo writes (post #307):





> 1.* ** The interesting point about providing a prior 'thing' is that by doing so so you have invalidated the arguments of almost all your fellow thingists. They seem to believe that 'another thing' refers to a mysterious threat rather than an alternative course of action.


This doesn't convince me at all. I don't see why "an alternative course of action" couldn't also be a course of action that was undesirable, or that lead to an unexpected result. That is, "a mysterious threat" and "an alternative course of action" don't seem exclusive at all to me (You _think_ that X is happening, but actually _thing_ Y is going to happen - this thing could be a negative consequence or just a change of plans). I understand the "logic" of "another thing coming" perfectly well. At least, it's just as logical as "another think coming" (You've got another think coming? Coming from where? Aren't you the source from which your thinks arise? Wouldn't it be more logical to say "[you're going to have to] think again?).

I also want to suggest that *the internal logic of the phrase is unimportant compared to the way in which the phrase is used in sentences*. In my mind, "[to have] another thing/k coming" is one unit (just like "a bird in the hand" or "sour grapes" or "no duh" or "aa-ooo-gah!" or maybe even something like "I do"/"With this ring I thee wed" in the marriage ceremony). It's all one group of sounds/letters with one meaning. The meaning doesn't arise from the individual words themselves and the way they combine with each other, but from the overall phrase and how it combines with the other parts of the sentence/utterance.


----------



## PaulQ

I know, let's have a vote then burn the heretics.


----------



## JulianStuart

lucas-sp said:


> I really don't want to get into this, but the OED gives a mention of "another thing coming" dating from 1906 in the post you just responded to! An _8 year gap_ recorded in the OED (which, for better or for worse, isn't a slang dictionary or a dictionary of spoken language) isn't convincing evidence for either side's priority.



The 8 year gap seems to be how long it took before someone first _wrote_ thing (as a misapprehension of think).  The editors of the times (from 1900ish to 1960ish) all seemed to prefer/allow think (in the Google book database at least).  Without Google audio from the same time period, the ambiguity of speech and hearing of those days will remain 
As I noted somewhere above, the think version was the dominant one for quite some time after its origination, but how that bears on the "correctness" of the other one is not clear.  At least until someone specifies what _they_ mean by "correct", and then we'll argue over discuss _ that _definition (in a separate thread, of course )


----------



## lucas-sp

I'm just still not convinced. With one recorded use of "think" in 1898 and then a recorded use of "thing" in 1906 there's no way to tell which is the "original" and which is the "misapprehension." Why shouldn't we believe that then, like today, there were speakers using "thing" _and_ speakers using "think" - without it necessarily being true that they even noticed that they were using different phrases?

What your ngrams show is that from the 1930's to the 1990's "think" was strongly preferred in print. But that doesn't constitute a watertight argument for the _primacy_ of "think." I would assume that people got it "wrong" and heard or said "thing" back then, too, or even perhaps that both variants have always existed.

I did check in a dictionary of idioms, which _only_ listed "think." I wonder if speech patterns only recently changed to the point where "think coming" and "thing coming" were indistinguishable. That would account for the growing interchangeability of "think/g" in the saying.


----------



## PaulQ

lucas-sp said:


> I wonder if speech patterns only recently changed to the point where "think coming" and "thing coming" were indistinguishable. That would account for the growing interchangeability of "think/g" in the saying.


That's an interesting thought - consider how German immigration to the US would influence the pronunciation of the final 'g' in thing and thus the listener's perception (and hence the repetition) of what people were actually saying.


----------



## Chasint

If we are doing unsupported theories - here is mine.

Originally people used to say things like "If you think that then you had better think again" then, one day someone with a sense of humour came along with the humorous idea of using 'think' as a noun. This was novel so many people started using it. Then a few people who had no sense of humour mistook it for 'thing'. Although the 'thing' version didn't make much sense, humans are well known for rationalizing language that they don't understand and so the false version started to get passed on. The non-existent 'other thing' sounded vaguely threatening and hence the 'bad thing' interpretation. 

This phenomenon of mishearing a phrase and yet somehow making sense of it is well known in the world of popular music where mondegreens are rife.


----------



## RM1(SS)

I certainly never saw "thing" used in this context until I read a similar thread in another forum a couple days ago.  I've always seen "think" in print, and have always heard (possibly, I suppose, incorrectly) people say "think."

US, Midwest, late 50s....


----------



## JulianStuart

lucas-sp said:


> I'm just still not convinced. With one recorded use of "think" in 1898 and then a recorded use of "thing" in 1906 there's no way to tell which is the "original" and which is the "misapprehension." Why shouldn't we believe that then, like today, there were speakers using "thing" _and_ speakers using "think" - without it necessarily being true that they even noticed that they were using different phrases?
> 
> What your ngrams show is that from the 1930's to the 1990's "think" was strongly preferred in print. But that doesn't constitute a watertight argument for the _primacy_ of "think." I would assume that people got it "wrong" and heard or said "thing" back then, too, or even perhaps that both variants have always existed.
> 
> I did check in a dictionary of idioms, which _only_ listed "think." I wonder if speech patterns only recently changed to the point where "think coming" and "thing coming" were indistinguishable. That would account for the growing interchangeability of "think/g" in the saying.


As I said, how people actually said or heard it is inaccessible to us today.  All we can go on is the printed word, filtered by editors of varying quality, pretty much all of whom thought it was "think" that was either being said or that made sense to them.  I don't think the concept of "primacy" was in my mind...


----------



## commonsenc

I personally cannot believe that this thread even exist's, the only way that "THING" works in this phrase is if someone says "hey, did you get that "THING" that I sent to you?, well keep an eye out because I sent another so, "you've got another "THING" coming"".

In the Judas Priest song, the entire song is telling you to either "THINK" or "re Think" your position, in fact the word "THING" is NOT used anywhere in the lyrics throughout the entire song!.

if one is a "THINKING" human then one would no doubt look into the meaning and usage of the word "THING" as too ensure that one is NOT being made a FOOL of.


----------



## lucas-sp

My father, late 60's, dyed-in-the-wool Midwesterner (US), had never heard of using "think" until yesterday. My mother, who learned English as a second language in Europe and the UK in the 1960's, had never heard of using "think" until yesterday. 

Meanwhile, COCA (contemporary American English from 1990-present) lists more uses for "thing" than for "think," but it's not a statistically significant majority.





Biffo said:


> ... one day someone with a sense of humour came along with the humorous idea...


I don't know why "think" is any more "humorous" or "folksy" or "surprising" than "thing." This is partly because I don't think people notice the "thing" or "think" in the phrase, but understand the phrase as a whole. But also, your story doesn't actually match up with the way in which new words or phrases are created. (It's not that one person starts saying one thing which then gets repeated verbatim; instead, lots of people say sort of similar things which over time become standardized. The "correct" form of a word or phrase emerges over time and doesn't exist at the point of emergence of that word or phrase.)

I just think we need to clear away the prejudice - neither variant is "clearer," "more logical," "more elegant," "original," or the like. Language is not and has no need to be logical; logic is one restricted form of language, but everyday language has a much more varied range of rules and non-rules. (Dictionary-makers have to make decisions and judgments about the history of language using the only resources available to them - print. With other resources, methods, and disciplinary goals, the OED editors could have made a different judgment.) 

I find these conversations about the "logic" or aesthetic success of the phrase unhelpful because we're clearly dealing with two well-established variants. They're so similar that most people (myself included, and just look at commonsenc's recent post) don't even know that two variants exist. I figured out doing research that I had read "another think coming" multiple times since my childhood without even _noticing_ the difference. I probably just thought it was a typo (also, because I was reading the semantic unit "another think/g coming," not inspecting its individual parts for meaning). Instead, can't we ask: _who_ uses "think" and _who_ uses "thing"? or, alternately, _when and where_ is "think" used and _when and where_ is "thing" used? Are we dealing with regional differences, age differences, class differences, gender differences, or something else? What other forces might have contributed to the shift in popularity between variants?

I ask these different questions not to be a descriptivist, but actually (in a paradoxical way) to be more prescriptive. We should figure out the kinds of _situations_ in which either "think" or "thing" would be preferred so as to be able to give better advice about their use.


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> ...We should figure out the kinds of _situations_ in which either "think" or "thing" would be preferred so as to be able to give better advice about their use.


I will start by suggesting my rule: Every time the word 'think' appears at the start of the phrase then we should use 'think' later.

*Examples*
If you think that then you can think again. 
If you think that then you can thing again. 

If you think that then you have another think coming. 
If you think that then you have another thing coming. 



If the phrase begins with 'thing' then 'thing' can follow.

*Example*
If you thing that then you can thing again.
.
.
.
What is your suggestion lucas-sp?


----------



## PeskyWesky

n0lqu said:


> Having read the ENTIRE thread, here's my summary/opinion/interpretation of what people have been saying:
> For myself, I honestly don't remember which method I learned growing up. When I first remember learning there were two variants, I discovered I was a thinkist -- it made sense to me, and I started cringing whenever I heard "thing." Thanks to this thread, I will cringe less and resist the urge to correct anyone. I can't promise to always be successful in my resistance, though.



Well, I haven't read all the thread, just this summary and a few other posts. Thank Goodness nOlqu took things into hand and wrote this summary, which is fascinating, both linguistically and as a study of human nature!
Unfortunately it seems that this proved too much for him/ her in the end because no more posts were made. Shame.

I just wanted to say that my own take on this is that there is no wrong or right. If somebody uses xyz, and manages to _*communicate*_ with another person then that word, phrase, lexical item is in use - whether you like it or not. You don't have to use it, you might not want to teach it - but it's out there!!!


----------



## Chasint

PeskyWesky said:


> Well, I haven't read all the thread, just this summary and a few other posts. Thank Goodness nOlqu took things into hand and wrote this summary, which is fascinating, both linguistically and as a study of human nature!
> Unfortunately it seems that this proved too much for him/ her in the end because no more posts were made. Shame.
> 
> I just wanted to say that my own take on this is that there is no wrong or right. If somebody uses xyz, and manages to _*communicate*_ with another person then that word, phrase, lexical item is in use - whether you like it or not. You don't have to use it, you might not want to teach it - but it's out there!!!


An interesting point but not good enough in its present form. Hungarians manage to _*communicate*_ between themselves perfectly well without using a word of English. That doesn't mean to say that Hungarian should be counted as valid English. We have to draw the line somewhere. I choose to draw the line between correct and incorrect English. If you don't do that, there is no point to this forum.


----------



## commonsenc

To me there are 2 choices, correct or incorrect.
I have never heard a teacher say; "I want you to THING about this over the weekend".
Nor have heard anyone say; "there is someTHINK in the road, don't run over it".
While the English language is full of words with multiple meanings, THING and THINK are NOT on that list.
As for those who are the victim of incorrect teaching I have this to say;

if your mentor, teacher or instructor teaches you that it is normal to jump off of a cliff at age 25 and plummet to your death,
though you know that the information is incorrect do you take the plunge anyway?.


----------



## Chasint

commonsenc said:


> ...
> Nor have heard anyone say; "there is someTHINK in the road, don't run over it".
> ...


That is an interesting point. In some areas of England the regional accent does render 'something' as 'somethink' (near Birmingham) or even 'sumfink' in some parts of London.

I'll leave others to draw conclusions.


----------



## mancunienne girl

As a "thingist", the expression, when it was used towards me as a child was a threat. "If you think that, you  have a (n unpleasant) thing coming to you". The other expression, as I recall was "If you think that, you had better think again". Could it be that the "thinkists" have confused the two??!! Ha ha. Just a thought (as opposed to a "think").


----------



## wandle

commonsenc said:


> While the English language is full of words with multiple meanings, THING and THINK are NOT on that list.


I beg to differ. As with many common words, they do have multiple meanings.
WordRef (Concise Oxford) gives 5 for 'thing' and 4 for 'think', including 'think' as a noun (informal).


----------



## Li'l Bull

I agree with Biffo and others that the line must be drawn between correct and incorrect English (or correct and incorrect language in general). I think we all know that what people say and what they should say are very often two different things. Some people are so used to hearing or using an expression that they end up thinking (thinging??? ) that is what everybody should use.

For me, the answer to the initial question in this thread couldn't be more straightforward: "you've got another THINK coming". I've looked up the expression in several dictionaries and all of them concur (the only difference being that in some of them the expression appears under the noun "think", and in others under the verb "to think").

AFTER ALL, WHAT ARE DICTIONARIES FOR?

In case you want to check it out, these are the dictionaries I've referred to:

Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

Cambridge Dictionary Online

MacMillan Dictionary and Thesaurus

Merriam-Webster

The Free Dictionary

WordReference (English definition)


----------



## simon123

Biffo said:


> That is an interesting point. In some areas of England the regional accent does render 'something' as 'somethink' (near Birmingham) or even 'sumfink' in some parts of London.
> 
> I'll leave others to draw conclusions.



Oh Biffo, is that an admission that it probably did start as "another thing coming" until those dreadful Londoners mispronounced it and popularised the "other think coming" variant?  Your 'thinkest' credentials will be revoked!


----------



## PaulQ

My main objection is that "thing" perpetuates a mistake. However, like some horrible virus, it has escaped into the wild and there's not much hope of saving the situation, so we may as well pretend there is no situation and give up and accept both.

In a glow of self-righteousness, I will leave the 'thingists' to go on in their error as, irregardless, I could care less.


----------



## Chasint

simon123 said:


> Oh Biffo, is that an admission that it probably did start as "another thing coming" until those dreadful Londoners mispronounced it and popularised the "other think coming" variant?  Your 'thinkest' credentials will be revoked!


Has it occurred to you that it may have happened the other way around? It started as 'think' but some Londoners couldn't tell the difference so they started to thing think the word was 'thing'.
Either is possible. That is why I declined to come to a conclusion.


----------



## Chasint

PaulQ said:


> ...In a glow of self-righteousness, I will leave the 'thingists' to go on in their error as, irregardless, I could care less.


I hope you're joking with "irregardless"


----------



## simon123

Biffo said:


> Has it occurred to you that it may have happened the other way around? It started as 'think' but some Londoners couldn't tell the difference so they started to thing think the word was 'thing'.
> 
> Either is possible. That is why I declined to come to a conclusion.



Perhaps, except that Londoners are quite able to tell the difference between 'thing' and 'think' when others say it.  Indeed, most have no idea they pronounce 'thing' as 'think'.  The number of Southerners I've met who tell me they have 'no accent'...


----------



## Chasint

mancunienne girl said:


> As a "thingist", the expression, when it was used towards me as a child was a threat. "If you think that, you  have a (n unpleasant) thing coming to you". The other expression, as I recall was "If you think that, you had better think again". Could it be that the "thinkists" have confused the two??!! Ha ha. Just a thought (as opposed to a "think").


Did they really say "If you think that, you have a thing coming to you" ?  If so I have never heard it before. If that was what was actually said then maybe your argument would stand up. However wouldn't they then say  "If you think that, you have something coming to you."? That would be normal English.


----------



## mancunienne girl

Another thought, "a think" doesn't come to you; a "thought" does. However, a "thing" certainly can come to you. Think about that one!


----------



## mancunienne girl

Biffo said:


> Did they really say "If you think that, you have a thing coming to you" ?  If so I have never heard it before. If that was what was actually said then maybe your argument would stand up. However wouldn't they then say  "If you think that, you have something coming to you."? That would be normal English.


No, I was summarising what they meant by the expression we have been discussing.  They said...... "If you think that, you have another THING coming". And, as I said somewhere above, a "think" might come to you, but "a thought" comes to me......


----------



## Chasint

simon123 said:


> Perhaps, except that Londoners are quite able to tell the difference between 'thing' and 'think' when others say it.  Indeed, most have no idea they pronounce 'thing' as 'think'.  The number of Southerners I've met who tell me they have 'no accent'...


So you speak for all Londoners? Maybe they can tell the difference when 'others' say it because 'others' pronounce the sounds distinctly. If, as you say, they have no idea, then when listening to each other (not outsiders) they would be unable to distinguish between the correct 'think' and the erroneous 'thing'.


----------



## Chasint

mancunienne girl said:


> Another thought, "a think" doesn't come to you; a "thought" does. However, a "thing" certainly can come to you. Think about that one!


You haven't answered my previous objection yet. One thing at a time. (But in any case, what is the problem with a think coming to you? It means you had better have another think (about the subject))


----------



## Chasint

I don't think that anyone has mentioned another variant on the saying. Here are some examples:

Quotations


*1901*, Wallace Irwin, _The Love Sonnets of a Hoodlum_, VIII:My finish then less clearly do I see, / For lo ! I *have another think a-coming*.
*1918*, Jacob Marvin Rudy, _Our Nation's Peril_, page 132:...and if you think just because we are at war I'm going to give my brains an opiate or send them away on a vacation, you got *another think a comin'*. I wasn't built that way.
*1950*, Conrad Richter, _The Fields_, page 72:But if she figured she could break him, she *had another think a coming*.
*1967*, Sylvia Wilkinson, _A Killing Frost_, page 47:I told them they *had another think a-coming* if they thought they could talk me down like they did Papa, and they could just pack themselves right off my...
*1984*, James Purdy, _On Glory's Course_, page 252:He *had another think a-coming*, that begrimed whoremonger!

Note that all of the above were well-educated people, for example  _Conrad Michael Richter (October 13, 1890 – October 30, 1968) was an American novelist whose lyrical work focuses on life along the American frontier. Two of his novels won the 1951 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction and the 1961 National Book Award for Fiction._ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Richter

Who are we to argue with a multiple Pulitzer Prize winner who was alive when the expression was new?


----------



## Einstein

While it's true that in Birmingham the *-ing* sound is often pronounced with the *g*, as in *finger*, not *singer*, and in London we hear pronunciations like *somefink*, this is not the origin of the confusion. As plenty of others have already said, the *k* of *think *and the *c* of *coming *are pronounced together, so that *thing coming* and *think coming* sound very similar.
I think we all have to accept that we're not going to get to the end of this by pure reason. Biffo says,


> I choose to draw the line between correct and incorrect English


but the whole problem is deciding which is the correct form. I don't think anyone here is saying, "I'm going to use the incorrect form, goddammit!"
I'm convinced that *another think coming* is the original and logical form, but this grates with those who have always said *another thing coming* and we're not going to hammer them into submission by the force of logic! I think we should agree to disagree and leave it there.
However, it might be useful, or at least entertaining, to ask friends, relatives and colleagues whether they say *thing *or *think*. We might get some surprises!


----------



## simon123

Biffo said:


> So you speak for all Londoners?



I do.  Simon123 is but a pseudonym for Boris Johnson.


----------



## dreamlike

As a non-native speaker of English, am I better off with "think" or "thing"? When reading this thread I got the impression that the vast majority of foreros appear to be in favour of the "think" version...

Also, Biffo, could you please say what function do you think "a" serve in your examples? I find it pretty interesting.


----------



## Chasint

dreamlike said:


> As a non-native speaker of English, am I better off with "think" or "thing"? When reading this thread I got the impression that the vast majority of foreros appears to be in favour of the "think" version...
> 
> Also, Biffo, could you please say what function do you think "a" serve in your examples? I find it pretty interesting.


My advice, naturally is 'think'. Here are my reasons:

1. The majority on this forum believe it is think.
2. The majority of cases given by Google Ngram give 'think'
3. Dictionaries say that 'think' is correct and 'thing' is a mistake.
4. There are many more written versions of 'think' by well-educated people and more versions with 'thing' by less-educated people.
5. The further back in time you go the more you will find 'think'. Recently the 'thingists' are appearing more and more but that doesn't make them right.*

Note:
*** The incorrect spelling of "dosen't" instead of "doesn't" is also becoming more frequent but that doesn't make it correct.

____________________________________________________
With regard to "a-", this was quite common in the past with many verbs. I expect there will be threads on the subject. If not you could start a new one.

Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press:
*a-
2* 
▶_prefix_

2 in the process of: _a-hunting_.■ in a specified state: _aflutter_.
– origin OE, unstressed form of on.
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/a-


----------



## PaulQ

dreamlike said:


> As a non-native speaker of English, am I better off with "think" or "thing"?


Without a shadow of a doubt, become a *think*-ist.  It seems to be the original, there is more research support for it, and it makes sense.


----------



## simon123

dreamlike said:


> As a non-native speaker of English, am I better off with "think" or "thing"? When reading this thread I got the impression that the vast majority of foreros appear to be in favour of the "think" version...



Honestly, the best lesson I think you can take from this thread is that it's best to avoid using this saying in written English.  You can say it as much as you like and everyone will hear their chosen variant, but if you write it then 50% of people will presume you've made a mistake, especially if English isn't your native language.

*Both *variants are correct, but as this is probably the only case in English where they both sound the same, it would appear that most of the population lives in complete ignorance of the other variant and will presume it is an error, and seemingly get quite riled up about it!


----------



## lucas-sp

Biffo said:


> ... who was alive when the expression was new?


Not true. That's not how language development works. If the phrase started to be written down in formal print in the late 19th century, we can presume that it had been circulating in speech and possibly other media for at least 50-60 years before that. Based on dictionaries and searches of published material, *we have no way of knowing* what was going on with the phrase before it began to be printed in a certain class of publication. 

This is like those bizarre claims that "Shakespeare invented the word 'assassin,' etc." - no, Shakespeare did not invent the word: the word was being used, probably in multiple ways, by enough speakers that it was understandable; Shakespeare happened to write it down at a certain point in time when it became possible to do so; Shakespeare's text survived long enough thanks to print and popularity for us to register him as the first _confirmable instance _of the word "assassin" being used to mean a certain thing.

These educated people were not bearing witness to "the birth of an expression." Instead, they were bearing witness to _the first time it was acceptable to print an expression_. We can see this today with words like "hella": clearly they are attested as words in the language, but they are still not yet attested in print.

I would like to again register my worries about the stereotypes of language development and "correctness" going on in this thread. Not to pick on Einstein (whose posts I really enjoy), but... in post #345 you find:





> The whole problem is deciding which is the correct form. I don't think anyone here is saying, "I'm going to use the incorrect form, goddammit!" [...] I'm convinced that *another think coming *is the original and logical form.


Here you see the conflation of "original," "logical," and "correct." As I pointed out before, when words or phrases are being developed they *exist originally in multiple, different forms* (Biffo has shown that there was in fact a _third_ version of this saying present in its early years); only over time are these multiple forms *standardized into one "correct" variant.* Any impression that language is originally constructed so as to be "logical" is a prejudiced rationalization about language's historical change.

And anyway, why should "well-educated people" be experts on correct *slang*? On the forum today, you often see "well-educated" people claiming that slang or non-standard English are "incorrect" and that "well-educated people wouldn't use them." (Or just geting the meaning/structure/linguistics of slang wrong.) Again, if we honestly want to find out what the "original" form of this phrase was (assuming that there was one), we would have to see how it was used in informal conversation in the 1840's and 50's; unfortunately, we cannot access this information. All discussions about "original precedence" (which are unconvincing anyway) seem to forget that they are mere speculation since *both/**all three variants* of the phrase are used in text within a decade; that only seems to prove that both variants existed and were attested.

My sense right now is that there simply isn't enough use of this phrase to justify standardization yet. I don't think we can say that it's correct or incorrect in any one of its variants; historically, it hasn't developed to that point. Or: in the mid-20th-century "think" was the standardized variant (although very many people still used "thing"), but the other variant "thing" has now become interchangeable with "think."


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> ...I would like to again register my worries about the stereotypes of language development and "correctness" going on in this thread...


That is fine and what you say is well-reasoned. However, if we are presented with the request:


> As a non-native speaker of English, am I better off with "think" or "thing"? ...


I feel obliged to give an answer. The single most powerful argument is that dictionaries agree on 'think'.  That alone should be enough to recommend that version as a good one for non-natives to learn.

The only arguments in favour of 'thing' appear to be "My mum used to threaten me with this.", "I've seen it in a pop-song" and "Lots of people on Google say it.". There is no other positive research that the 'thingists' have come up with to support their claims.


----------



## Chasint

simon123 said:


> ...if you write it then 50% of people will presume you've made a mistake...


Please don't invent numbers. Where is your research to prove this 50/50 division?


----------



## lucas-sp

Li'l Bull said:


> Some people are so used to hearing or using an expression that they end up thinking (thinging??? ) that is what everybody should use.


Um, not to be pedantic, but what other expressions are we supposed to use? Language only works inasmuch as it is something that we have in common; we can only communicate if we use (in whole or in part) the expressions that we see or hear in use elsewhere. One problem here is that it is very difficult to know whether you are _hearing_ (or even _reading_) "think" or "thing."


dreamlike said:


> As a non-native speaker of English, am I better off with "think" or "thing"? When reading this thread I got the impression that the vast majority of foreros appear to be in favour of the "think" version...


If you look at the beginning of the thread, it starts off with many more "thing"-ists than "think"-ists. I don't think anyone wants to do a straw poll of them, but... well, I'm sick in bed today. Here you go: forum posters up to this point (hopefully I avoided doubles, and I didn't include anybody's youth group leaders, aged church reverends, or dear old moms from Appalachia in 1847):

USA "thing"-ists: 20
USA "think"-ists: 26
USA "both": 7
USA "have switched from one to the other": 1

UK "thing"-ists: 14
UK "think"-ists: 14
UK "both": 2

Australian "thing"-ists: 2
Australian "think"-ists: 5

Other English "thing"-ists: 7
Other English "think"-ists: 9
Other English "have switched from one to the other": 1

Total "thing": 43
Total "think": 54
Total "both": 9

Interesting numbers (but not at all representative of anything). It looks like only in Australia does "think" win out strongly. I was also surprised at how many people in the US went with "both"; it seems much more US'ers than UK'ers are comfortable with or aware of the duality of variants.

So if you're interested in what a snapshot of us "well-educated" WR-ers has to show, it's... well, it's that. Very much closer than the ngrams would suggest: there's still a preference for "think" but it is much smaller than it used to be. Perhaps this shows that in the mid-20th-century "think" became the standard variant for a time, but that it won't be the standard variant for much longer.

And while I was poking around, here's something from the mid-70's:





Lexiphile said:


> I'm also genuinely surprised. I'm surprised that we can get to 78 posts (now 79!) about... not a "widespread error," [...] but rather a widespread dichotomous usage.
> 
> As was mentioned very early on, the two words sound very similar, so it's quite likely that one usage developed out of the other. The "thing" users have attached a perfectly acceptable meaning to their expression and the "thinkers" have done likewise. It doesn't even make any real difference which one came first.
> 
> So there are now two very similary expressions to convey the same idea. [... *We] are prepared to accept literally hundreds (perhaps thousands) of linguistic constructions as "correct" even though they were (and by some people still are) seen to be grammatical errors.*


Wise words, I think. "Widespread dichotomous usage" makes the most sense to me, and I completely agree that both the "logical consistency" and "grammatical correctness" (not to mention the "originality") of either phrase has been consolidated after-the-fact.


----------



## Forero

Biffo said:


> That is fine and what you say is well-reasoned. However, if we are presented with the request:
> 
> I feel obliged to give an answer. The single most powerful argument is that dictionaries agree on 'think'.  That alone should be enough to recommend that version as a good one for non-natives to learn.
> 
> The only arguments in favour of 'thing' appear to be "My mum used to threaten me with this.", "I've seen it in a pop-song" and "Lots of people on Google say it.". There is no other positive research that the 'thingists' have come up with to support their claims.


I don't believe all dictionaries have reached consensus on the correctness or acceptability of either version. Besides that, the phenomenon of many dictionaries sharing erroneous information is well documented.

What do dictionaries really say about the relative acceptability of these particular expressions in professional/educated circles?


----------



## Chasint

Forero said:


> *A.* I don't believe all dictionaries have reached consensus on the correctness or acceptability of either version.
> *B.* Besides that, the phenomenon of many dictionaries sharing erroneous information is well documented.
> *C.* What do dictionaries really say about the relative acceptability of these particular expressions in professional/educated circles?



A. I tend to believe the author of post #333 who actually lists the dictionaries he has consulted on the matter. Have you checked?

B. If it is well-documented, please provide a link to some of this documentation. Otherwise it is simply an unsupported claim that anyone could make.

C. I don't understand the question. There are plenty of examples of professionals/educated people using 'think' I have quoted several of them myself.


----------



## Einstein

> Not to pick on Einstein (whose posts I really enjoy), but... in post #345 you find:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole problem is deciding which is the correct form. I don't think anyone here is saying, "I'm going to use the incorrect form, goddammit!" [...] I'm convinced that *another think coming *is the original and logical form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you see the conflation of "original," "logical," and "correct."
Click to expand...

Thanks for the compliment, *lucas-sp*, but I'm not quite sure why you quoted me. My point was that repeating our own convictions over and over again is not going to convince the others. Was that how you understood it?
You say that different forms develop and then a standard form emerges. I'm sure this is true in many cases in the development of a language, but not always. In an earlier post I quoted the examples of *strait-jacket*, as the original expression, becoming *straight-jacket* in the minds of people who hadn't considered the meaning of *strait*, and *free rein*, a riding term, converted to *free reign* by those who didn't know its origin. So along with unification in some cases we get diversification in others and I believe this is the case with the expression in this thread.
As for "original", "logical" and "correct", I would certainly eliminate "correct" from this discussion. However old "another thing/think coming" may be, it has remained a slang expression that no one would use in a remotely formal situation. It is precisely the fact that it is usually spoken and not written that leaves such a lot of doubt about the spelling. Since when did we debate about the correctness or otherwise of slang?


----------



## Chasint

Einstein said:


> ...*A.* It is precisely the fact that it is usually spoken and not written that leaves such a lot of doubt about the spelling.
> *B.* Since when did we debate about the correctness or otherwise of slang?


A. If you look at my examples in post #344you will see that the version I give there is well-documented and is immune to the mispronunciation of more recent versions. "think a-coming" could not easily be mistaken for "thing a-coming"

B. Slang expressions get debated all the time on the forums. They also get used in dialogue in novels. The dictionary recommendation on how to spell them and the usage of other writers seems to be a good place to start.


----------



## Einstein

Biffo said:


> A. If you look at my examples in post #344you will see that the version I give there is well-documented and is immune to the mispronunciation of more recent versions. "think a-coming" could not easily be mistaken for "thing a-coming". *This is an interesting point a**nd as a thinKer I'm **with you.*
> 
> B. Slang expressions get debated all the time on the forums. They also get used in dialogue in novels. The dictionary recommendation on how to spell them and the usage of other writers seems to be a good place to start. *I didn't say we shouldn't discuss them; I was only disputing the use of the word correct in such cases*.


----------



## simon123

Biffo said:


> Please don't invent numbers. Where is your research to prove this 50/50 division?



Sorry, 50% of UK WR forum users will, or 40-60% of WR native speakers will depending on their geographic distribution and/or other factors that influence this that are yet to be discovered.  The research can be found in lucas-sp's post of 5:12 PM.  I would say that lacking the finances to undertake a further investigation, that we can assume that roughly 50% of people find the other variant incorrect.

If he wants to play the odds he should use 'think', although it's hard to say if this is statistically significant on such a small sample.  Or, as I have suggested, he should avoid using the expression in written English.


----------



## Chasint

simon123 said:


> ...If he wants to play the odds he should use 'think', although it's hard to say if this is statistically significant on such a small sample.  Or, as I have suggested, he should avoid using the expression in written English.


I believe that the authority of dictionaries and the precedent of the majority of published writers is sufficient justification for choosing 'think' even if half the populace disagree. Playing the odds isn't so important then.


----------



## JulianStuart

simon123 said:


> Sorry, 50% of UK WR forum users will, or 40-60% of WR native speakers will depending on their geographic distribution and/or other factors that influence this that are yet to be discovered.  The research can be found in lucas-sp's post of 5:12 PM.  I would say that lacking the finances to undertake a further investigation, that we can assume that roughly 50% of people find the other variant incorrect.
> 
> If he wants to play the odds he should use 'think', although it's hard to say if this is statistically significant on such a small sample.  Or, as I have suggested, he should avoid using the expression in written English.



I have 12745.87% more faith in the Ngram data from a* huge database of printed works,* incomplete though it is, than in a tiny sampling from self-selected WRF posters!  And it also seems that the dictionary survey from the poster above still agrees with them.


----------



## simon123

My point is not that one is more correct than the other.  I have deliberately not chosen a side in this 'debate'.

My point is that if you write this then around half of your readers think you are wrong.  As this thread demonstrates, it can get extremely heated.  Surely you can concede that even if only, say, a third of people are getting this slang 'wrong' then it is advisable to avoid using it?


----------



## lucas-sp

Einstein said:


> Thanks for the compliment, *lucas-sp*, but I'm not quite sure why you quoted me. My point was that repeating our own convictions over and over again is not going to convince the others. Was that how you understood it?


Sorry, Einstein, really didn't mean to offend. I wholly concur with your point. What I wanted to point out was that the arguments for _either_ "think" or "thing" rely on a historical primacy, logical coherence, or aesthetic superiority to demonstrate the "correctness" of "think" or "thing." All these arguments seem to me as if they are generated a posteriori - that is, someone assumes the "correctness" of "think" or "thing" _and then_ constructs arguments based on originality, logic, or aesthetics to prove that position. That is, someone finds "think" or "thing" original, logical, and beautiful _because _that someone already uses "think" or "thing."

So I suppose we're thinking the same thing. I find these arguments unsatisfying because _clearly_ there are many people who use both variants. (Julian, did you notice how COCA doesn't gibe with the ngrams? When you open the search up to non-print sources - and to print sources other than those archived on Google - the numbers change.) People tend to think a saying is logical because they use it; they don't use it because they think it's more logical than other sayings. Same goes for aesthetic pleasure and "correctness." Those follow from use; they don't precede it. If you choose to argue that one form is better, then you can only say that the people who use the other are "wrong," "mistaken," "illogical," etc. - and that is reductive and uncharitable. (It's funny to see the editors of _Gamer's Modern American Usage_ tie themselves in knots trying to claim that "another think coming" is the accepted variant when they can't actually find a contemporary example of it in the print sources they use.)

That's why the only possible argument that can stand as fully satisfying is one that takes into account a _split _in usage. There are at least two forms of the saying possible today. This may not have always been the case, but it does seem like there is evidence suggesting that there were multiple forms of the saying quite near the point of its emergence. I would like to propose that we try to discuss the _split_ - who uses which variant? are there communities where only one variant is accepted? - rather than present arguments that can't take this dichotomous usage into consideration.

Einstein's examples of homonyms changing accepted phrases are interesting. What I meant, however, was that before there was "straitjacket," for instance, there was "strapjacket," "straitshirt," "straitvest," etc. Over time, "straitjacket" emerges as the consolidated and "correct" word for this idea. _Then_ it undergoes homonymic deformation (based probably on the fact that people don't talk about "straits" any more). My question is whether "another think/g coming" ever reached the point of consolidation in the first place.

Since we're discussing slang or informal speech, I think we are particularly obliged to pay more attention to the groups that employ it, and that employ it _differently_.


----------



## Chasint

simon123 said:


> My point is not that one is more correct than the other.  I have deliberately not chosen a side in this 'debate'.
> 
> My point is that if you write this then around half of your readers think you are wrong.  As this thread demonstrates, it can get extremely heated.  Surely you can concede that even if only, say, a third of people are getting this slang 'wrong' then it is advisable to avoid using it?


If I write "dosen't" or "existance" or "irregardless" there is a proportion of the population in each case who will think I am right. Dictionaries would say each of those is wrong. Should I avoid using these expressions in writing in case I offend someone? I don't think so.


----------



## lucas-sp

Biffo said:


> If I write "dosen't" or "existance" or "irregardless" there is a large proportion of the population in each case who will agree with me. Dictionaries would say each of those is wrong. Should I avoid using these expressions at all in case I offend someone? I don't think so.


Nobody would agree with the person who claimed that "dosen't" is "correct." It's a typo. So is "existance." These comparisons are specious. "Irregardless" is - well, it's its own thing. One of those specters of language decay that's always brought in to these kinds of arguments.

There is no such thing as a group of English users who consciously spell "dosen't" like that instead of "doesn't." There are indeed certain common errors that have always been around in English; these do not rise to the level of established variants. If you brought the "dosen't" to the attention of the "dosen't" writer, you would find that they would correct it, in the vast majority of cases. Furthermore, even if people mistakenly type "existance," they do not pronounce it differently. A more interesting example to offer here might be a word like "pwn," where a common mistake actually propels language change and the creation of new words/usages.

There are, however, many newspapers, "well-educated" people, and careful speakers of all sorts who use "another thing coming," not by mistake, not through ignorance, but because this variant of the phrase is the one to which they have been exposed. (Apparently, we have all been exposed to _both_ variants, although we haven't noticed that fact.) There are two variants in circulation. This is different from non-standard variants or from common errors.


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> ...There are, however, many newspapers, "well-educated" people, and careful speakers of all sorts who use "another thing coming," ...


I think the time has passed in this thread for unsubstantiated claims. I and others have provided actual quotations of well-educated people using the 'think' version. It would be nice to see a similar rigour on the part of people who claim the other usage. All I have seen so far is "My mum said" or quotations from a Judas Priest song. Let's have the evidence.


----------



## Hau Ruck

dreamlike said:


> As a non-native speaker of English, am I better off with "think" or "thing"? When reading this thread I got the impression that the vast majority of foreros appear to be in favour of the "think" version...
> 
> Also, Biffo, could you please say what function do you think "a" serve in your examples? I find it pretty interesting.



The only reason you will be told a "majority" favo_u_r "think" is because a majority of the posters to this site are BrE speakers.    I can tell you that 99% of the AmE speakers _I know _would laugh if you said "think coming."


----------



## Chasint

Filsmith said:


> The only reason you will be told a "majority" favo_u_r "think" is because a majority of the posters to this site are BrE speakers...


<< Not necessary. >>

Here is the Ngram graph of American usage of the phrases: http://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...00&year_end=2000&corpus=17&smoothing=3&share=

Also see my post number #344 where I  quoted American authors.


----------



## owlman5

Filsmith said:


> The only reason you will be told a "majority" favo_u_r "think" is because a majority of the posters to this site are BrE speakers.    I can tell you that 99% of AmE speakers would laugh if you said "think coming."


I had no idea I belonged to such a tiny minority, Filsmith.  Are you sure that I do?  It surprised me to read that many use "thing coming".  To me, "think coming" is just a witticism - one that has lost its sparkle over time.  To me, "thing coming" ruins the joke, feeble as it is.


----------



## lucas-sp

Biffo said:


> I think the time has passed in this thread for unsubstantiated claims. I and others have provided actual quotations of well-educated people using the 'think' version.


I think this is mostly because you haven't looked for "another thing coming," Biffo. And I did point out that there are more uses of "thing" than "think" in COCA. If you didn't look, well...

I'll begin with a fun one:





> Language is a fluid thing, and it belongs to everyone, and if you think you can legislate it, you've got another thing coming. (Benjamin Alire Saenz, award-winning poet, in "Conversations with Mexican-American Writers")


And some more. Here's the magazine that used to publish Henry James:


> You think the niggers aren't organized? You think this wasn't all planned? " Dad said something that could have meant yes, could have meant no. " Well, they have another thing coming. Right? We're all in this together. Right? " he demanded, leaving no doubt that Dad had to reply, one way or another. Don Wallace, "While Watts Burned," Harper's (1997)


And here's one from a newspaper with a notoriously picky style sheet:





> If Osama bin Laden imagined, in releasing a threatening new videotape days before the presidential election, that he could sway the votes of Kerry supporters like David and Jan Hill and Bush supporters like Paul Christene, he has another thing coming. (Kirk Johnson, New York Times, October 30 2004)


Actually, if you look in the NYT catalogue, you will find a pretty even split of "thing" and "think," suggesting that they accept both variants. Many of them are transcriptions from various speakers - politicians, analysts, artists, etc. But it's not just highbrow news:





> HANSEN: (Voiceover) Fourteen months after Jon LaChappelle was gunned down, a judge in Thailand issued an arrest warrant for Dara Panasy, the charge premeditated murder. The family believed justice would finally be served, but they had another thing coming. (Chris Hansen on NBC's "Dateline NBC")


Meanwhile, a noted folksy American:





> Second bull says, “I got nine cows, and if he thinks he's touching a one of them, he's got another thing coming." (Roy Blount Jr.'s "Feet on the Street," 2005)


Look, even academics:





> we have been "extradited to the land of no return . . . flying blind to nowhere. And if you think that's going to be fun, you've got another thing coming. (Timothy Corrigan's "Cinema Without Walls," 1991)


And here's one I particularly like, since it's from a globally-successful Australian novel (just when I thought Australia was the last refuge of the think-ist):





> Frank couldn't be harnessed. And if you think you, a woman, can harness Ralph de Bricassart's son, you've got another thing coming. (Colleen McCullough's 1977 "The Thorn Birds")


Now are you convinced that a group of "well-educated," conscientious, diverse "thing"-ists exists?


----------



## PaulQ

I don't know why, but I am reminded of 





> _If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants._


-- Bertrand Russell, "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish," 1943


----------



## Chasint

Thank you lucas-sp. At last we have some real evidence on behalf of the "thingists"! 

1. I did spend some time looking for the 'thing' version. I just didn't find much on Google apart from hundreds of quotes from Judas Priest and dozens of arguments about which was the correct version. I also found many versions of 'thing' from people who made many errors of spelling and grammar. However I have consistently acknowledged that the 'thing' version exists in published works by showing Ngram plots.
2. I like the Benjamin Alire Saenz quote. I assume he is being ironic in his use of 'thing' in order to make his point.
3. I am convinced more by your post than I have been by all the others that supported 'thing'.

Since I first joined the argument I have changed from being partial to being pragmatic. I now believe that, when advising non-natives which to use, it is best to suggest using their dictionaries. That way, if someone complains (perhaps an English teacher), they can simply point them towards the dictionary as their authority. Currently dictionaries favour 'think'.

I maintain my own view that from every perspective including raw usage 'think' is preferable. Maybe in 20 years the dictionaries will change. In that case I would advise a non-native to change along with them.


----------



## Chasint

PaulQ said:


> I don't know why, but I am reminded of -- Bertrand Russell, "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish," 1943


I don't know why either. If you are talking about anger then I'm not sure who is supposed to be angry. If you are citing Russell as a sage then you should be aware that what at one point was considered to be his seminal work *Principia Mathematica* has since been shown to be built on intellectual sand.

_Gödel's first incompleteness theorem showed that Principia could not be both consistent and complete. According to the theorem, within every sufficiently powerful logical system (such as Principia), there exists a statement G that essentially reads, "The statement G cannot be proved." Such a statement is a sort of Catch-22: if G is provable, then it is false, and the system is therefore inconsistent; and if G is not provable, then it is true, and the system is therefore incomplete._
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica


----------



## JulianStuart

lucas-sp said:


> Now are you convinced that a group of "well-educated," conscientious, diverse "thing"-ists exists?


In American English books  the "thing" has grown from 0% in 1960 to 36% in 2008 (of the combined "got another think/g coming" in the Ngram database)  It is clearly established, widely used and accepted by many editors. 

Its adoption illuminates how people pick up words and phrases, and perpetuate them (or altered versions of them) without necessarily analysing the specific/original meaning and in time the neologism becomes "established".  The tried and trusted example is how few people realize that Goodbye started out something like "God be with you"; a current parallel, in the sense of continuing today) to the thing/k bifurcation is the growing use, even among the "educated", of "I could care less" when they actually mean the opposite - see this discussion for some lively comments 
In that dailywritingtips.com discussion, user "spot" wrote


> I read through all of your comments………
> This subject can be debated forever with both sides producing valid arguments. Therefore…….
> After careful review……I have decided that I (have the capacity to) “could” care less about this subject. Actually, I am going to start caring less right now!


----------



## lucas-sp

Biffo said:


> Thank you lucas-sp. At last we have some real evidence on behalf of the "thingists"!


Phew! Am I glad to hear that! (Although I don't think Saenz was being ironic, but...)

I'm more with Julian. I still don't know whether I accept that "another think coming" was well-established at the origin of writing the phrase. But it very much seems that some shift has gone on in the last half-century (although my dear old dad claims he has never heard of "think" before in all his years of talking). I also still wonder about arguments based on logical consistency. I thought the definition of "idiom" was that an idiom's meaning couldn't be semantically deduced from its component parts, i.e., that an idiom has to be a little illogical or that it is meaningful as a complete semantic unit whether or not it is, strictly speaking, logical based on the meaning of the semantic units that constitute it.

I also wonder if the fluctuation in this phrase is particularly severe because it is so rarely used. That is, it seems much more volatile because it isn't iterated enough to become standardized.


----------



## JamesM

Just as a side note, there is a line from the 1939 movie "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" (starring Jimmy Stewart) that goes:

"No, sir, anybody that thinks that has got another think coming!"

The movie may predate your dad and he may have never watched it, but it's definitely easy to find examples of it.


----------



## JustKate

Garner quotes the OED, saying the _think_ version dates from 1937 (in print) - he acknowledges that the _thing_ version is used by a "surprising number" of writers, but doesn't date it.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is almost as old as the _think_ version (which is, after all, not very old). This isn't like, say, _straitjacket_ or _tenterhook_, both of which have developed variants because they rely for part of their meaning on words that aren't used by most of us any more. This is simply a case where someone said _think_ and another person heard _thing_, and since _thing_ does make sense (unlike, to use another example, "could care less"), it's been used by some of us all along. And that includes me. As I mentioned upthread, I never knew there was a _think_ version until I started visiting grammar message boards.


----------



## PaulQ

JustKate said:


> Garner quotes the OED, saying the _think_ version dates from 1937 (in print) - he acknowledges that the _thing_ version is used by a "surprising number" of writers, but doesn't date it.


http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=87385&page=16&p=12743666#post12743666 According to the OED, both appear in print somewhat earlier.


----------



## panjandrum

I thought I would toss in a small suggestion for all those who are interested in the Ngram analyses.

Take a look at some of the actual examples that are being counted for "thing".
My very superficial look revealed something interesting.

*"another thing coming", AE sources.*
4 probably genuine examples.
4 examples pointing out that "thing" is an alteration of the "think" version.
Somehow an alternative version arose: 'You've got _another thing coming_.'
 1001 Commonly Misused...
The Oxford Guide to Etymology
101 Questions about the English language ... "thing" is a result of linguistic Chinese whispers.
1 example of a dictionary that permits either version.
1 example that is using the phrase in a completely different context

So, that amounts to four genuine examples from the first ten.

I'm not drawing any conclusion from this, but I would like to suggest that it is unwise to draw conclusions from such counts without deeper inspection of the underlying data.


----------



## -mack-

I don't think most AE speakers would _laugh_ at "If you think X, you've got another think coming." It might sound unfamiliar to them, but the think-think wordplay connection is obvious.


----------



## Forero

-mack- said:


> I don't think most AE speakers would _laugh_ at "If you think X, you've got another think coming." It might sound unfamiliar to them, but the think-think wordplay connection is obvious.


I would laugh at the wordplay. It's obvious humor has already been mentioned in its defence.

In fact, now I do remember hearing the _think_ version once a long time ago. I thought the girl was making a joke, but others in our company attacked her version as plain wrong. I had no idea she had probably never heard it any other way.

What I find interesting about the Ngram counts is the use of "another thing coming" in the early 1800s. I assume they had a completely different context, but I just wonder...

For non-natives, I would recommend using a version you understand, whichever that is, and being prepared to explain it.


----------



## JulianStuart

panjandrum said:


> I thought I would toss in a small suggestion for all those who are interested in the Ngram analyses.
> 
> Take a look at some of the actual examples that are being counted for "thing".
> My very superficial look revealed something interesting.
> 
> *"another thing coming", AE sources.*
> 4 probably genuine examples.
> 4 examples pointing out that "thing" is an alteration of the "think" version.
> Somehow an alternative version arose: 'You've got _another thing coming_.'
> 1001 Commonly Misused...
> The Oxford Guide to Etymology
> 101 Questions about the English language ... "thing" is a result of linguistic Chinese whispers.
> 1 example of a dictionary that permits either version.
> 1 example that is using the phrase in a completely different context
> 
> So, that amounts to four genuine examples from the first ten.
> 
> I'm not drawing any conclusion from this, but I would like to suggest that it is unwise to draw conclusions from such counts without deeper inspection of the underlying data.



If you include "got" in the phrase and look at early citations, (to 1927) you find most fit the discussion and some even have quotes around the word "think" as if, back then, some editors thought it was a new usage as a noun. (That link to such an example may not work for everyone, but it's in the lisings of the previous link!)


----------



## mplsray

Biffo said:


> An interesting point but not good enough in its present form. Hungarians manage to _*communicate*_ between themselves perfectly well without using a word of English. That doesn't mean to say that Hungarian should be counted as valid English. We have to draw the line somewhere. I choose to draw the line between correct and incorrect English. If you don't do that, there is no point to this forum.



If I thought that educated people avoided the "thing" version and uneducated people preferred the "think" version, I would perhaps call the "thing" nonstandard. I know of no such evidence. They are both idioms, used in identical situations, by educated people, and logical arguments against one version or the other are just as pointless as arguing against the use of an idiom such as "raining cats and dogs" on the basis that it is literally untrue.


----------



## mplsray

Einstein said:


> However old "another thing/think coming" may be, it has remained a slang expression that no one would use in a remotely formal situation. It is precisely the fact that it is usually spoken and not written that leaves such a lot of doubt about the spelling. Since when did we debate about the correctness or otherwise of slang?



Just because a term may never be used "in a remotely formal situation" does not make it "slang." The "think/thing" idiom may very well be "informal," however, and this can be subcategorized into "informal standard" and "informal nonstandard." This distinction not only is recognized by linguists today but goes back all the way to the beginning of the twentieth century, used—with other terms, including "standard colloquial," but the concept was the same— in the works of linguist George Philip Krapp. We can certainly discuss whether an expression falls into one category or the other. As I pointed out in my previous post, the "thing" version is used by educated people, and thus falls within the category of standard, just like the "think" version. If someone wishes to argue that the "think" idiom is worthy of being included in the category of standard formal, then I would put the "thing" version in the same category.

My own take on the "think/thing" expression is that it is just too rude for me to consider using it.


----------



## PeskyWesky

"It's cheap at half the price"
Well known British English expression. A little dated now perhaps, but still in use. Does it make sense? No. Has it been used for decades, if not centuries? Yes.
It seems its origin was a phrase that says "Cheap at twice the price", but it was mangled into "cheap at half the price" and is used by people every day. You can say all you like that the phrase is wrong, but it's being used, recognised, exchanged all the time.
Same with "thing" or "think". Nobody's right or wrong. They are both being used.
End of story

PS please don't take the thread even more off course by discussing the phrase "cheap at half the price". That's not my aim!


----------



## PeskyWesky

lucas-sp said:


> That's why the only possible argument that can stand as fully satisfying is one that takes into account a _split _in usage. There are at least two forms of the saying possible today. This may not have always been the case, but it does seem like there is evidence suggesting that there were multiple forms of the saying quite near the point of its emergence. I would like to propose that we try to discuss the _split_ - who uses which variant? are there communities where only one variant is accepted? - rather than present arguments that can't take this dichotomous usage into consideration.



Agree


----------



## Chasint

> Originally Posted by *lucas-sp*
> That's why the only possible argument that can stand as fully satisfying is one that takes into account a _split _in usage. There are at least two forms of the saying possible today. This may not have always been the case, but it does seem like there is evidence suggesting that there were multiple forms of the saying quite near the point of its emergence. I would like to propose that we try to discuss the _split_ - who uses which variant? are there communities where only one variant is accepted? - rather than present arguments that can't take this dichotomous usage into consideration.


I'll make a start. The community of dictionary compilers consistently use 'think'.   (Note: Annoyingly I can't find the post where this was pointed out. EDIT JulianStuart found it - Post 333)

Does anyone know of other communities (apart from their family and friends)?


----------



## lucas-sp

Biffo said:


> I'll make a start. The community of dictionary compilers consistently use 'think'.   (Note: Annoyingly I can't find the post where this was pointed out by someone. I'll mention it here when I find it)
> 
> Does anyone know of other communities (apart from their family and friends)?


Dictionary compilers are bound to make hard-and-fast decisions about variants in usage based on print sources. That's the nucleus of the research methodology, disciplinary goals, and limitations of a dictionary. A dictionary is a guide primarily for the understanding of words in a certain class of written documents. These methodologies definitely stem from practical constraints (how would we be able to analyze the spoken language of 1743?), but they can also turn out to produce other biases as well, and sometimes unexpected ones.

The same thing goes for Google Books, which, for better or for worse, is also an anthology of print of a certain class. It's more inclusive and wide-ranging, but some of the same problems still apply.

Try changing a part of the methodology - for instance, look at sources other than books. I already showed how the New York Times (again, a paper with a notoriously picky style section) accepts both variants interchangeably. So that's a famous highbrow newspaper accepting both variants.

To get a sense of the wider use of these phrases in interviews and reports, look at Google News searches for the phrases "another thing coming" and "another think coming," and make sure to click through to the last page to see the actual number of hits. There are 21 results for "another think coming" (a lot of the ones that come up are reading a headline that was repeated on multiple pages), and *57 results* for "another *thing* coming." That's a huge majority in favor of "thing"! It could just be a blip for now, but it certainly shows that there is a significant number of people using "thing" in reading and writing, in semi-formal situations.

As I said before, in COCA (US English since 1990) the results are more evenly split, 20/23 in favor of *thing*. COCA transcribes television and radio to take spoken language into account alongside printed language.

Once you change the search methodology, the results change.

Basically, *it's very hard to believe (whether you were originally a think-ist or a thing-ist) that the other variant exists and is used*. But it does, and it is. So can we please move beyond this kind of bizarre skepticism about "think" or "thing"?

I'm not anti-dictionary. But it's obvious that dictionaries have a restricted use in language-learning (and even for the "fluent" who have "mastered" a language). Dictionaries don't and can't exhaustively cover sentence-building, pronunciation, bullshitting, wordplay, slang, informal speech, all the reformations and deformations that constitute the everyday practice of language. (Although the case is certainly better in English than, say, in French - where the boundaries between "correct French" and "everyday, actual French" are policed by a government agency - it remains true that if you want to learn how people actually speak to each other at a certain point you must put the dictionary down and start playing the game of language with those people.) This is why, I believe, language teachers advise their students not just to look in the dictionary, but to talk to native speakers. I think we could all take this advice to heart: we have a lot of native speakers here, with a well-demonstrated level of reflectiveness and self-consciousness about their language. If they say that "thing" is a variant that they hear and see used, why would we believe the dictionary over them?


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> ...So can we please move beyond this kind of bizarre skepticism about "think" or "thing"...


You invited us to come up with communities. That's all I did. I shall be interested to hear about other communities that have a preference for whichever version.



Incidentally I think the following gives a new perspective as it is similar to the 'think' point of view but doesn't suffer from ambiguity of pronunciation.

*have another guess coming*
to have to rethink something because one was wrong the first time.._.__You have another guess coming if you think you can treat me like that!_
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/guess


----------



## Einstein

Biffo said:


> *have another guess coming*


But are you sure it's not "another *guest*"? Sorry, I couldn't resist!


----------



## panjandrum

I started to read the thread again but gave up, so it's possible that someone (indeed possibly me) has said this before.  Post #48 comes close.

I suppose I'm still struggling to understand the thingists, and it occurs to me today that part of my difficulty may be related to the context in which I have heard and used "... another think coming" and the meaning I attribute to it.

At the heart of this is my understanding that the statement means that something that you have hitherto held to be true will be irrefutably proven wrong and you will be convinced of an alternative version of truth.  It is about your set of beliefs.  Nothing more.

It seems very probable, looking at posts by thingists (not all of them, sorry), that their understanding of the expression they use is substantially broader, and their projection of future events includes an ominous entity, the "thing", that will force the change.  
Indeed it seems possible that their threatened future does not necessarily involve a change of belief (see quote from post #35, below).
I notice also that many of the thingists consider that "what you  think" relates to the expectation of something happening, so that  "another thing" clearly refers to a thing that is different from the  previously-anticipated thing.  For them, "another think" is nonsensical (see quote from #23).

For example:
#21 - But that's too gentle -- merely inviting him to think again on the error  of his ways.  Instead, an unspecified but ominous and menacing "thing"  is headed his way.  The mystery of the "thing" adds to its threat, but  it falls into the same generally nasty category as the implied "things"  in "you'll get what's coming to you", "you'll get exactly what you  deserve."
#22 - This is the idea behind the expression, which suggests that the thing in question is retribution for having wronged the speaker.
#23 - If you think you're having ice cream for pudding, you've got another  thing coming. (A clip around the ear hole / tapioca and being sent to  bed early).
#24 - you have something else coming your way - like a shock, a punch, being fired, etc.
#35 - To me, it is an expression which is laced with menace; it means that  grave consequences, of which you are currently ignorant, await you.  Sometimes it means that the consequences await irrespective of any  change of mind or action.

My convoluted thought process leads me to wonder if in fact we are talking about different expressions that have different meaning to their ardent advocates.
Rather as if we are arguing about whether we ought to say "The bird is blue," or "The bird is green," while half of us are looking at one bird and half of us at another.


----------



## timpeac

panjandrum said:


> My convoluted thought process leads me to wonder if in fact we are talking about different expressions that have different meaning to their ardent advocates.
> Rather as if we are arguing about whether we ought to say "The bird is blue," or "The bird is green," while half of us are looking at one bird and half of us at another.


This sounds very believable to me. As a thinkist I've been struggling to understand the rationale behind "thing", but - as you say - that's perhaps because it's not trying to fulfil the same rationale as me (which is identical to "if you think that then you have a rethink coming").

The weight of this thread certainly shows that we need to leave any discussion of which is "right" and which "wrong" at the very least. I don't think I've seen another thread that has created such a schism between native speakers who think that their version is right/natural/correct etc!


----------



## Chasint

panjandrum said:


> ...
> My convoluted thought process leads me to wonder if in fact we are talking about different expressions that have different meaning to their ardent advocates.
> Rather as if we are arguing about whether we ought to say "The bird is blue," or "The bird is green," while half of us are looking at one bird and half of us at another.


That's a new idea to me. However if it were the case wouldn't we expect at least a small proportion of people who happily used both versions but in different circumstances?


----------



## PaulQ

timpeac said:


> I don't think I've seen another thread that has created such a schism between native speakers who think *know *that their version is right/natural/correct etc!


Fixed


----------



## timpeac

Biffo said:


> That's a new idea to me. However if it were the case wouldn't we expect at least a small proportion of people who used both versions but in different circumstances?


Good point - but I think not. I say that based on the huge number of people (myself included) who were initially incredulous to learn that there were others who could possibly think the other form was correct - were surprised to hear it even existed. My impression, from this thread, is that one is sometimes said, sometimes the other - but a given individual will initially hear one or the other form and then go on hearing it no matter what the actual pronunciation or intention of the subsequent speakers are. This has been shown by the people in this thread who have spoken to relatives and found that some use the other form.

This isn't that surprising. The natural assimilation of a "g" before a "c" as you would get in "thing coming" would make it very similar indeed to "think coming" in speech at normal speed.


----------



## PaulQ

We have (i) think-ists and (ii) thing-ists, (iii) those who are happy to accept both (or (iii)a, at least suspect that both do) and (iv) those who suspect that there are two separate phrases.

This is the Think-ist background evidence and solid argument (as opposed to their suspicions/vague opinion/anecdotal stories)





Cagey said:


> On Google books, the earliest incident of "another think coming" is 1873. Certainly it was in spoken language before that.
> "You think I ought to thank you for butting in and keeping me from dying without knowing anything about it, don't you? Well, you got another think coming." ... from the American Publishers Weekly - 1873


It's on the basis of its word play that I believe the "think coming" version was first. It seems to me that sayings of this sort are built around and even motivated by catchy word play and rhymes.[/QUOTE]



Loob said:


> Grammatically dubious, panj? OED's first citation for "think" as a noun dates from 1834. And I, personally, often sit and have a drink ooops think.


 


> mplsray said:
> 
> 
> 
> It looks as if no one has yet noted in this thread the dates of first attribution which the Oxford English Dictionary gives for these idioms. The following come from the entries "think" and "thing" respectively:
> The editors of the OED think that the think version came first.
> 
> 
> 
> [1.]c. to have another think coming... 1898 Syracuse (N.Y.) Standard 21 May 8/1 Conroy lives in Troy and thinks he is a corning fighter. This gentleman has another think coming.
> P17. to have another thing coming...
> 1919 Syracuse (N.Y.) Herald 12 Aug. 8/3 If you think the life of a movie star is all sunshine and flowers you've got another thing coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> preppie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is indeed "thing" and I have another one coming.. What was the first 'thing' I received. And now I get to enjoy a second ? or third ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JamesM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it any more or less true than "If you think the world is going to fall at your feet, you've got a surprise coming." The person may find that the world does actually fall at his feet. I'd say it's more of a prediction than a wish or a command.
> 
> In many cases, the person using the expression is about to disabuse the other person of his current notion, so it's a fairly safe prediction.
> 
> "If you think I would marry you, you've got another think coming."
> "If you think I'm going to let you go to that party with your homework unfished, you've got another think coming."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bdpalawan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither of the sounds represented by the /k/ nor /ng, respectively, are "palatalized." They are velar (palatal includes sounds such as y, double-L in Spanish, etc.) Velars are not quite swallowed (there are sounds articulated much further back in the throat). But you are correct that the problem people have in hearing the difference is that phonetically, without an unnatural pause between "thing (or think)" and "coming," it sounds the same: thingcoming. It is ambiguous as to whether the /ng/ is the /ng of "thing" or the /n/ of "think" (both represent the same velar nasal sound.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we all agreed by now that 'think' can indeed be a noun? Here is the OED entry for that:
> noun [in singular] informal an act of thinking:
> I went for a walk to have a think
> 
> This usage is described as 'informal', which means that the OED have enough evidence to establish 'think' as a noun in that register. It would not surprise me to find it in a good modern novel. At any rate, the fact that the OED includes it shows that there is sufficient real life evidence for this usage.
> 
> Given that, it seems we can establish with reasonable probability which expression came first.
> In fact, not only do we have two different phrases, but we have two different meanings.
> 
> (a) 'You have (got) another think coming' means 'You are about to change your mind'.
> (b) 'You have (got) another thing coming' means, we are told, 'Something unpleasant is about to happen to you'.
> 
> If the expression originated as 'you have (got) another thing coming', then why would it be associated with 'if you think that'? Why 'think'? Why would it not be associated equally with a range of other verbs?
> 
> Why not, for example, 'If you believe /imagine /suppose that, you've got another thing coming'?
> Why not, 'If you're saying that, you've got another thing coming'? Or, 'If that's your position..'?
> (If any of these expressions do occur, they are far less frequent than 'if you think that'.)
> 
> If the meaning is 'Something unpleasant is about to happen to you', then why would it not be used in a range of other situations?
> Why not, for example, 'Clean up your room, or you've got another thing coming'?
> Why not, 'If you go playing in the street again, you've got another thing coming'?
> 
> On the other hand, if the expression originated as 'you have (got) another think coming', then (a) we have a logical connection with 'if you think that', (b) we have a pointed and witty expression and (c) we can see how 'think coming' could easily be misheard, especially by children, as 'thing coming'.
> 
> It requires a bit more effort to say 'think coming' with the two 'k' sounds clearly distinguished than to say 'thing coming' with only one 'k' sound. As linguists recognise, there is a natural tendency in pronunciation, where there are similar-sounding letter combinations, for the more difficult one to be replaced by the easier one. That is very typical of children's attempts at pronunciation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and then there is *
> 
> 
> n0lqu said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having read the ENTIRE thread, here's my summary/opinion/interpretation of what people have been saying:
> [snip]
> a summary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> * A summary worth reading
> 
> A thing-ist might want to do something similar.
Click to expand...


----------



## JulianStuart

Biffo said:


> I'll make a start. The community of dictionary compilers consistently use 'think'.   (Note: Annoyingly I can't find the post where this was pointed out by someone. I'll mention it here when I find it)


Post 333



> Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
> 
> Cambridge Dictionary Online
> 
> MacMillan Dictionary and Thesaurus
> 
> Merriam-Webster
> 
> The Free Dictionary
> 
> WordReference (English definition)


----------



## simon123

I'm intrigued by the idea that these could in fact be two different sayings, i.e. that although most people only use one, the reason they are so attached to it is functionally different from the other.

From what I can see, the 'think' variety has arisen as a word-play - conflating the verbal with the noun variety of the word.  The humour arises from using two different meanings of the same word, in the same way as, say, "A man walks into a bar.  Ouch."  (This use of two different meanings of think seems in my mind to be mutually exclusive to the claim that it is somehow more logical, but never mind).  The phrase is therefore seen as a 'humorous' rejoinder to think again.

On the other hand, the 'thing' variety seems a more straight up warning.  If you think some_thing_ then you have another thing coming -  that thing that you think will not come to pass, something else will. One always thinks some_thing:_ indeed, were one a zen master, and being of a completely clear mind, it still seems vaguely koan-like to say, "If you are thinking of no_thing_, then you have another thing coming."

The question then becomes do thinkists and thingists use it in slightly different contexts.

I must confess, here, to being a thingist.  I was brought up hearing this as a warning/threat: e.g.  If you think I'll tidy your room for you then you've got another thing coming.  On the one hand that thing could just be me tidying my room but it was rather more ominous to have it left unspecified.  I have also heard the phrase 'having another thing coming' used as an unspecified threat without the first half of the phrase: e.g.  He might be top dog at the moment but he has another thing coming.  Naturally, this wouldn't make sense with the 'think' version.

Could a 'thinkist' confirm that they use the phrase in different situations?


----------



## timpeac

simon123 said:


> Could a 'thinkist' confirm that they use the phrase in different situations?


Yes - as a thinkist for me "if you think I'll tidy your room for you then you've got another think coming" isn't a threat - it simply means "you are (going to find out that you are very) wrong". "He might be top dog at the moment but he has another think coming" isn't something I'd say. The only way it could really work for me is in speech where people aren't always thinking clearly about what they have just said, and so this would be used by someone who meant "he might think that he's top dog at the moment" even if he actually said "he might be top dog...". If he unequivocally is top dog, and he, the speaker and everyone else would agree that he is top dog at the moment then the phrase using "think" wouldn't make any sense to me and - not being a thingist - it wouldn't occur to me to use the phrase using "thing".

So for me saying "he has another think coming" has to mean that the person is thinking wrongly at the moment and will at some point come to realise that. Not _necessarily_ that something bad will happen if they continue thinking that way whether or not what they think now is actually correct. A thing may come along which will cause the rethink but it is the rethink being referred to by the phrase, not the thing itself (after all why would it then be "another").

This supports, I think, Pajandrum's suggestion that thingists and thinkists actually mean something a bit different with their phrase.


----------



## PaulQ

simon123 said:


> I have also heard the phrase 'having another thing coming' used as an unspecified threat without the first half of the phrase: e.g.  *He might be top dog at the moment but he has another thing coming.*  Naturally, this wouldn't make sense with the 'think' version.


It would make complete sense as it is very close indeed to the first known 'think' use as recorded in OED: 





> [1.]c. to have another think coming... 1898 Syracuse (N.Y.) Standard 21 May 8/1 *Conroy lives in Troy and thinks he is a corning fighter. This gentleman has another **think **coming.*





> Could a 'thinkist' confirm that they use the phrase in different situations?


There seems to be no record here of anyone who actually uses both phrases, either indiscriminately or for different purposes.


----------



## simon123

Yet Paul, in the 1898 quotation, he 'thinks' he is a corning fighter, but he has another 'think' coming.  His belief is incorrect.

In my example, he *IS *top dog, but he has another thing coming - a different state of affairs.

The 'thing' variety is broader in its object, it can apply to a state of affairs that is actual, as well as the state of affairs that someone thinks.  However, it appears to be more restricted in that it is only used as a threat or warning - can other 'thingists' confirm this?

In contrast, the 'think' variety is a rejoinder that may have lost some of its humour through becoming base currency through constant use.  Still, as far as I can tell from this thread, it doesn't have the ominous overtones of the 'thing' variety.  Would you agree?

Also, according to post #354, around 8.5% of the tiny self selected sample who have commented on this thread use both sayings.  Having not parsed the thread myself, I have no idea if these are native speakers or not.  I have no experience of these dualists in the wild; then again, I wasn't aware of the 'think' variety before the advent of this thread.


----------



## timpeac

simon123 said:


> Yet Paul, in the 1898 quotation, he 'thinks' he is a corning fighter, but he has another 'think' coming.  His belief is incorrect.
> 
> In my example, he *IS *top dog, but he has another thing coming - a different state of affairs.


If he absolutely IS top dog now, then this would prevent this thinkist from using the phrase in this situation - as there will be no rethink of the present situation necessary.

It seems, then, that we mean different things by this phrase. Thingists criticise the fact that if the phrase is indeed "think" then "think" isn't a noun, or is only a humorous noun (although, for me it isn't humorous "a think" seems normal to me - sit there and have a think about what you've done!) and thinkists criticise the fact that the "another" seems superfluous if the phrase is indeed "thing" - but either way, there are ample examples of phrases that don't make sense when analysed ("cheap at half the price" for British speakers and "I could care less" for American speakers for example) but that doesn't stop them being commonly used.


----------



## fenixpollo

timpeac said:


> ...the person is thinking wrongly at the moment and will at some point come to realise that. Not _necessarily_ that something bad will happen if they continue thinking that way whether or not what they think now is actually correct. A thing may come along which will cause the rethink but it is the rethink being referred to by the phrase, not the thing itself (after all why would it then be "another").


This is exactly what "he has another *thing *coming" has to mean. He's thinking one thing, and another thing may come along which will cause the rethink but it is the thing being referred to by the phrase, not the "think" (which is, after all, not a noun but a verb).


----------



## timpeac

fenixpollo said:


> (which is, after all, not a noun but a verb).


See my later post.


----------



## simon123

timpeac said:


> Thingists criticise the fact that if the phrase is indeed "think" then "think" isn't a noun, or is only a humorous noun (although, for me it isn't humorous "a think" seems normal to me - sit there and have a think about what you've done!)



I don't have a problem with a 'think' being used as a noun - it obviously can be and I use it as such.  The reason I mark it as 'humorous', or, more accurately, word-play, is that the word is being used in two different senses in the 'thinkist' version.  If you think (verb)... another think (noun) coming.  These have different, if intimately related, meanings, and I'm sure it's for this reason that most 'thingists' have such problems with it aesthetically.  Of course, someone's personal sense of aesthetics in this matter is down to what they have grown up with and not a reason to reject it at all.

I'm interested if you think the phrase has ominous overtones or whether you see it as light-hearted.  I accept both phrases as valid, albeit informal, and I'm interested in seeing if they have different uses other than the fact that the 'thing' variety has a wider scope in terms of its object (i.e. not just rethinking but also changes in the way things are).


----------



## wandle

fenixpollo said:


> "think" (which is, after all, not a noun but a verb).


Not only is 'think' a noun, as the Oxford English Dictionary confirms, but so is 'rethink'. 

Some people use 'rethink' as an alternative to 'another think'.  
(Perhaps this has happened as a reaction to the arrival of the Thing from Inner Space.)

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2010/1130/WikiLeaks-release-How-China-sees-North-Korea
_"if Kim Jong-il and his son are calculating their recent military aggressions with an assumption that Beijing regards them as being eternally useful," the Economist says, “They may now have a rethink coming.”_

http://kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=630246&sid=40c1276053acfd91f30dd0cb44b3ec97
_They may think they can remind us of "Be Our Guest" from Beauty
and the Beast, but I think they have a rethink coming.
_
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/09/23/look-it-other-yellow-pages039.html
_That's right, folks: If you thought Islam was sexually conservative, you have a
rethink coming! _

Some examples of 'think' as a noun in other contexts:

Cambridge Dictionaries online
_Have a good think about it and let me know tomorrow. _

http://www.lesleywriter.com/the-power-of-a-good-think/
_The power of a good think_ - Commercial Copywriting UK

http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Student/Exams/Exams1.html
_Have a careful think about what you will take in with you. _

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmstand/b/st020618/am/20618s02.htm
_The Government amendments should not be tabled at the very last minute to
prevent the Opposition or anyone else from having a careful think about them 

_


----------



## JulianStuart

The possibility that the two phrases may differ in meaning has made me have another think.  

Many (most?) of the thinkists feel that the listener will eventually have to accept that the way they currently think will have to change (when they learn the true state of the situation).  The listener has had a (first) think about it and currently thinks that "X is true".  The speaker knows that "X is false". They therefore tell the listener they will have to think differently in the future (the second, or other, think).  There is no negative consequence _implicit_ in having to think again, although there _may_ peril associated with thinking "X is true" if indeed it is false. In essence the thinkists use the expression as a "debate" device - "I know you are wrong, and when you think (again) about your stated position later, when you have learned more, you will have to change your mind". The speaker may nor may not be impatient (or angry etc.) with the listener, although the debate itself may bring that about.

It begins to look to me as if the thingists feel that the thing that is coming is not the rethinking but the (negative) consequence of thinking incorrectly.  

Thus:

The listener currently thinks/believes the bridge is safe to walk across.  The speaker _knows_ it is not ( the speaker is the one who cut the critical supports) and that it will _definitely_ break if the someone tries to cross it.  The speaker tells the listener "If you think the bridge is safe (X is true) you have another thing coming" - in this case the _"thing" is the fall itself _not the realization that "X is false" - i.e. _not_ the thought process (the second think) that _accompanies_ the learning of its falseness.

Anyone else see this glimmer?  Or have I restated what a couple of the recent posts are saying?  I have at last begun to understand one possible rationale for the thingists' view and the possibility that the two expeessions mean different things and all's well in my world


----------



## PaulQ

simon123 said:


> Yet Paul, in the 1898 quotation, he 'thinks' he is a corning fighter, but he has another 'think' coming.  His belief is incorrect.
> 
> In my example, he *IS *top dog, but he has another thing coming - a different state of affairs.


Well, no. Someone else thinks Conroy is a corning fighter and that someone else has the opinion that Conroy will have to reconsider his [Conroy's] own views


> The 'thing' variety is broader in its object, it can apply to a state of affairs that is actual, as well as the state of affairs that someone thinks.


As has been asked before, "How can you have another *thing *coming, if you did not have a *thing *in the first place? 


> In contrast, the 'think' variety is a rejoinder that may have lost some of its humour through becoming base currency through constant use.


I doubt that it was ever meant in humour - more as a sharp observation on the reliability of the opinions of another.  





> Still, as far as I can tell from this thread, it doesn't have the ominous overtones of the 'thing' variety.  Would you agree?


Well 1. I cannot see logic or meaning in 'thing' for the reasons given. 2. for that reason, I don't see those ominous overtones. 


> I wasn't aware of the 'think' variety before the advent of this thread.


Then your eyes have been opened to the truth and light! Repent immediately and become a thinkist!


----------



## fenixpollo

wandle said:


> Not only is 'think' a noun, as the Oxford English Dictionary confirms, but so is 'rethink'.


Maybe that's the reason that I'm a thingist. Since I have never heard anyone around me use "think" or "rethink" as a noun (only as a verb), then when I heard the phrase "you have another think coming", it made no sense; so my brain interpreted it as "you have another thing coming".


----------



## JulianStuart

fenixpollo said:


> Maybe that's the reason that I'm a thingist. Since I have never heard anyone around me use "think" or "rethink" as a noun (only as a verb), then when I heard the phrase "you have another think coming", it made no sense; so my brain interpreted it as "you have another thing coming".


So, is the "thing" that comes, the consequence of the original mistake (falling from the bridge) or the thought/thinking that happens (d'oh) when its falseness is proven?


----------



## vivace160

> The listener currently thinks/believes the bridge is safe to walk across. The speaker _knows_ it is not ( the speaker is the one who cut the critical supports) and that it will _definitely_ break if the someone tries to cross it. The speaker tells the listener "If you think the bridge is safe (X is true) you have another thing coming" - in this case the _"thing" is the fall itself _not the realization that "X is false" - i.e. _not_ the thought process (the second think) that_accompanies_ the learning of its falseness.



I'm a thing-ist (I never even knew "think" existed until I saw this thread) and this is exactly what I've always thought it meant. "If you think you're going to get away with cheating on your test, you've got another thing coming." The "thing" is the fact you aren't going to get away with it. "If you think it's okay to cheat, you've got another thing coming." In this case, the "thing" is the fact that it's not okay and, when you cheat, you're taking the risk of suffering the consequences if someone finds out.


----------



## JulianStuart

vivace160 said:


> I'm a thing-ist (I never even knew "think" existed until I saw this thread) and this is exactly what I've always thought it meant. "If you think you're going to get away with cheating on your test, you've got another thing coming." The "thing" is the fact you aren't going to get away with it. "If you think it's okay to cheat, you've got another thing coming." In this case, the "thing" is the fact that it's not okay and, when you cheat, you're taking the risk of suffering the consequences if someone finds out.



Thanks - so *the thing is not a think*!  Right?  

It's the consequence of the first way of thinking.  And "another" thing, just means an additional thing (usually undesirable)  after the many one has in life.


----------



## vivace160

JulianStuart said:


> Thanks - so *the thing is not a think*!  Right?
> 
> It's the consequence of the first way of thinking.  And "another" thing, just means an additional thing (usually undesirable)  after the many one has in life.



Yes, that's exactly what it is. The first thing they have is their initial thought/belief (using my previous sentence, the thought that they'll get away with cheating). The "another thing" that's coming is the potential consequences because what they initially believed is incorrect.


----------



## simon123

PaulQ said:


> Well, no. Someone else thinks Conroy is a corning fighter and that someone else has the opinion that Conroy will have to reconsider his [Conroy's] own views



The quote directly says that Conroy thinks he is a corning fighter, and that he will have to reconsider his opinion.  Surely that isn't open for debate? '*Conroy... thinks he is a corning fighter.'*  Hopefully we won't have to go back to first principals here!



> As has been asked before, "How can you have another *thing *coming, if you did not have a *thing *in the first place?



You always think some_thing_.  The thing that is coming is another thing.  I can't understand why this is a difficult concept.  In answer to JulianStuart, yes, the other thing that is coming is not 'a think', it is a state of affairs that may indeed engender a rethink but will probably have other consequences.



> I doubt that it was ever meant in humour - more as a sharp observation on the reliability of the opinions of another.


 
Other people have said it was humorous.  I guess what I mean is that it is a logical trick; using a word with two different meanings in the same phrase.  Compare the following: 'If you run after my girlfriend, you've got another run coming!'  If you attempt to woo my girlfriend then you'll have to run away (from me).  I'm not suggesting this has occurred in the wild, but am using it as an example of the word-play involved.  If this seems ugly and unusual, then you are experiencing what many 'thingists' feel upon discovering the 'think' variety for the first time!



> Well 1. I cannot see logic or meaning in 'thing' for the reasons given. 2. for that reason, I don't see those ominous overtones.



Hopefully I have made this clear.  If JulianStuart is right and 'thinkists' presume that the 'thing' is just a 'think' then I can assure you this isn't the case.



> Then your eyes have been opened to the truth and light! Repent immediately and become a thinkist!



I accept the 'think' variety in its own right.  I shall never use it, as I find it ugly.  I shall try my hardest not to wince when others use it.


----------



## wandle

simon123 said:


> I accept the 'think' variety in its own right.  I shall never use it, as I find it ugly.  I shall try my hardest not to wince when others use it.


How do you feel about the 'rethink' variety (see examples in post 407)?


----------



## lucas-sp

wandle said:


> How do you feel about the 'rethink' variety (see examples in post 407)?


My lord, it's hideous.


----------



## simon123

wandle said:


> How do you feel about the 'rethink' variety (see examples in post 407)?



I guess I just don't think that 'thinks', or 'rethinks' are things that 'come'.  I find it less grammatically awkward if they were 'coming up'.  However, I totally admit that this is because I was unaware of the 'another think coming' saying.  Would any 'thinkists' talk about 'a think coming' outside of the context of this phrase?


----------



## JamesM

I wouldn't and that's what makes it an idiomatic phrase to me, simon123.  It is reserved in my vocabulary for this expression.


----------



## timpeac

I think that most of the polemical nature of this thread comes simply from the fact that most supporters of each phrase were quite unaware that the other version was even a possibility, and therefore the other form sounds ridiculous to them. They can't believe that other rational native speakers could feel different so their usage sounds so wrong as to be ungrammatical. In isolation neither version is particularly strange or ungrammatical compared to many other set phrases in the language. This is compounded by the fact that the overtones of each phrase seem to be different too. Having got over the shock that others said it at all, it's certainly helped me to rationalise the thingist view to realise they are referring to a much more concrete thing than I am with my think - and that this might even imply that a rethink isn't necessary at all!


----------



## PaulQ

JulianStuart said:


> Anyone else see this glimmer?


I see that as apologist reasoning.


----------



## Chasint

simon123 said:


> I guess I just don't think that 'thinks', or 'rethinks' are things that 'come'.  I find it less grammatically awkward if they were 'coming up'.  However, I totally admit that this is because I was unaware of the 'another think coming' saying.  Would any 'thinkists' talk about 'a think coming' outside of the context of this phrase?


We could reverse the question. In real life, if someone said to me "I have a thing coming" I would imagine they had ordered something and that it would arrive by delivery van. I would not suppose they were talking about a change of circumstances.

However to answer your question:
(a) It is common to say "A thought came to me."
(b) If we look at the Wordreference definition of the noun 'think' we see:

▶_noun __informal _an act of thinking.
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/think

So we could say "If you think that then you have _another act of thinking_ coming."   This is very similar to "If you think that then you can think again."


----------



## timpeac

So "if you think that then you have another think/g coming" -

 thinkists: If you think that then you have another act of thinking coming in which your thoughts on this matter will be different.
thingists: If you think that then you have another thing coming that will be different from the thing you are currently thinking of.

Different words, different meanings. Not so strange!


----------



## wandle

Two questions:

(1) There can be no doubt that the word 'thing' is broad enough to include the meaning of 'think' as a noun.
However, if I understand correctly, _thing_ists maintain that in this context 'thing' has to mean something other than 'think': it is defined as being not a matter of thought but as something else external. Is that right?

(2) For those who dislike 'rethink' as a noun, how do you feel about 'think' as a noun in other contexts?


----------



## JulianStuart

timpeac said:


> Different words, different *meanings*. Not so strange!


----------



## lucas-sp

timpeac said:


> I think that most of the polemical nature of this thread comes simply from the fact that most supporters of each phrase were quite unaware that the other version was even a possibility, and therefore the other form sounds ridiculous to them. They can't believe that other rational native speakers could feel different so their usage sounds so wrong as to be ungrammatical. In isolation neither version is particularly strange or ungrammatical compared to many other set phrases in the language. This is compounded by the fact that the overtones of each phrase seem to be different too. Having got over the shock that others said it at all, it's certainly helped me to rationalise the thingist view to realise they are referring to a much more concrete thing than I am with my think - and that this might even imply that a rethink isn't necessary at all!


Yes, I totally agree! The think-ists should remember that the thing-ists felt the same shock and surprise on learning of the existence of "another think coming." "Another think coming" still sounds inelegant and illogical (not to mention unfunny) to me - but that's probably because I haven't had a lifetime to sit with it. I think we really need to work beyond the initial allergic reaction to the other variant.

2 thoughts:

1. (Explaining the logic of "thing" - which everybody still feels so worked-up about) In AE, if you say that "something's coming," it means that "something is going to happen." It can be anything - a hurricane, an argument, a party, a kiss, a duel, a sobbing fit. The "something coming" aspect of it just emphasizes the impending nature of the oncoming event. This is how I understood "another thing coming": you are going to have to change your mind real soon, once the pressure between reality and the way you currently think grows too great. The event isn't the bridge falling or nobody cleaning your room; the event is "having to change your mind." 

This is, for me, why there isn't that much difference between "think" and "thing." (Although the idea that they're "separate but equal" phrases is cute.)

2. (Why "think" sounds illogical, still, to me - not that I care, since I don't think either phrase's validity is based on its logic) I still don't understand how "another think" can "come" to you. To me, a "think" is something that you do yourself - I only situate that word within phrases like "I'm gonna sit down and have a good think about it," where it connotes conscious reflection. The phrase is dissonant to me because it mixes together external compulsion ("coming" to someone) with what has to be a voluntary and chosen act (a "think"). Even though I am familiar with "think" as a noun (not that I use it that often), it seems inappropriate to use that noun in this context.

I also think that the "wordplay," if there is any, is corny and not worth celebrating. But there you go.

The point being? Neither of these phrases is _that_ strange, unpleasant, ungrammatical, illogical, whatever. And they are both in use - with "thing" being used more and more (again, look at the news). But most importantly, the very thought of the phrase that you did not grow up using has been scientifically proven to be one of the most annoying stimuli in the language.

Hilariously, my thoughts 1 & 2 correspond eerily well to wandle's questions 1 & 2. At least we're all thing-ing along the same lines.


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> ...I still don't understand how "another think" can "come" to you. To me, a "think" is something that you do yourself - I only situate that word within phrases like "I'm gonna sit down and have a good think about it," where it connotes conscious reflection. The phrase is dissonant to me because it mixes together external compulsion ("coming" to someone) with what has to be a voluntary and chosen act (a "think"). Even though I am familiar with "think" as a noun (not that I use it that often), it seems inappropriate to use that noun in this context...


I don't have that problem, e.g.

_I made my first speech at the conference this morning and I have another speech coming this afternoon._

A 'speech' is an act of speaking and a 'think' is an act of thinking. In both cases it is an act I do myself.


----------



## timpeac

There is evidence that people from the same linguistic background can "hear" different phrases from each other (family and friends hearing the other phrase). Also this thread has shown that both version have large numbers of supporters and the vast majority of us hadn't even realised that the other version existed. It seems to me, therefore, that we will "hear" the version that makes most sense to us - both in meaning (is it the act of thinking that will change, or the thing being thought about?) and in terms of grammatical and semantic concordance (does it makes sense for a "think" to come, or on the other hand for _another _"thing" to come when the thing in question hasn't yet arrived?).

Those last two questions are rhetorical - for example Lucas explains why, logically, he thinks "thing" makes more sense and "think" is questionable. I think I could make a very similar post but in support of the other phrase. But I think that is to be expected. The pronunciations of "thing coming" and "think coming" are virtually indistinguishable from each other at normal speed and so we have already "heard" the version that naturally makes sense to us because on first hearing our brains had a free choice of the two - it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## PaulQ

We thinkists have God on our side; when we think of the first think, we think of the S/second C/coming...


----------



## timpeac

PaulQ said:


> We thinkists have God on our side; when we think of the first think, we think of the S/second C/coming...



If you think that you've got another...


----------



## Chasint

How about a compromise?

_If you think that you've got another thingk coming._


----------



## Loob

panjandrum said:


> My convoluted thought process leads me to wonder if in fact we are talking about different expressions that have different meaning to their ardent advocates.
> Rather as if we are arguing about whether we ought to say "The bird is blue," or "The bird is green," while half of us are looking at one bird and half of us at another.


If that were the case, wouldn't there be at least one example in this (_extraordinarily!_) long thread of a think-ist being puzzled by a thing-ist's usage of the expression - or vice versa?

Perhaps someone will come up with one.


----------



## timpeac

Loob said:


> If that were the case, wouldn't there be at least one example in this (_extraordinarily!_) long thread of a think-ist being puzzled by a thing-ist's usage of the expression - or vice versa?
> 
> Perhaps someone will come up with one.


But there are Loob - I can't recheck it all, but one I remember is "if he is top-dog then he's got another thing coming" (where it was specified that he actually was indeed top-dog". As a thinkist this would make no sense if I heard it as "think".

In terms of being confused outside of this thread - the vast majority of us didn't know the other form existed and so even if someone was saying the other form we would hear the one we expected.


----------



## Loob

timpeac said:


> But there are Loob - I'm can't recheck it all, but one I remember is "if he is top-dog then he's got another thing coming" (where it was specified that he actually was indeed top-dog". As a thinkist this would make no sense if I heard it as "think".


Yes, you're right, Tim: "If he's top-dog (and he really is top-dog) then he's got another think/thing coming" would confuse me mightily!



> In terms of being confused outside of this thread - the vast majority of us didn't know the other form existed and so even if someone was saying the other form we would hear the one we expected.


Agreed!


----------



## fenixpollo

wandle said:


> Two questions:
> 
> (1) There can be no doubt that the word 'thing' is broad enough to include the meaning of 'think' as a noun.
> However, if I understand correctly, _thing_ists maintain that in this context 'thing' has to mean something other than 'think': it is defined as being not a matter of thought but as something else external. Is that right?
> 
> (2) For those who dislike 'rethink' as a noun, how do you feel about 'think' as a noun in other contexts?


(1) Not necessarily. The 'thing' referred to by the expression may refer to a thought, but it usually doesn't. For example, the bolded words are the 'thing' being referred to:
If you think *I'm going to do your work for you*, you have another thing coming.
If you think that *she's happy about this*, you have another thing coming.

So if that 'thing' is literally a thought, then yes, the 'other thing coming' could be a thought.

(2) I don't feel good about it. The noun form of the verb 'to think' is 'a thought', not 'a think'. You say "I have a thought" or "A thought just occurred to me". You wouldn't say "I just had a think" or "A think just occurred to me". I can't recall any situation in which I've heard 'think' used as a noun. By extension, 'rethink' doesn't work, either.


----------



## PaulQ

fenixpollo said:


> The noun form of the verb 'to think' is 'a thought', not 'a think'.


There are at least 3 posts showing this not to be so; think can be a noun. Perhaps if you had *a think* about it?


----------



## Cagey

fenixpollo said:


> [....]
> You wouldn't say "I just had a think" or "A think just occurred to me". I  can't recall any situation in which I've heard 'think' used as a noun.


The use of 'think' may be regional in the US.  I'm familiar with "have a think", and might use it myself.  (It's true that I wouldn't say "a think just occurred to me.") 

Here are some threads:
"Yah, you said you'd have a think about it"
a think
A think and a go
Great minds like a think


----------



## timpeac

Cagey said:


> I'm familiar with "have a think".


So am I. I barely find it informal. If there is a split on this, it's probably one of the many reasons why someone on hearing for the first time "you've got another think/g coming" would "hear" one form or the other. And, as I say above, part of the self-fulfilling prophecy of which is correct.

To put it another way - is there anyone who, having read this thread, can say "I always thought the phrase was have a thing/k (delete as appropriate). But now, having heard the logical arguments of those who say "think/g" instead, I agree that makes more logical sense?" I'll wager not.


----------



## fenixpollo

When I said that "the noun form of _to_ _think_ is _thought_", what I should have said is, "I don't use 'think' as a noun and nobody I have ever known has used it as a noun which doesn't mean that it's not correct or that it's not used because obviously a lot of people seem to use 'think' as a noun but since I have never heard it used that way it doesn't sound natural to me especially when 'thought' is already a perfectly good noun form of the verb 'to think' although I don't begrudge anybody the right to have a think if they really want to have one."

At this point in the conversation, I thought it would have been clear enough that each of us is merely trying to hammer home our own individual ideas of which version is better, and that it would have been even clearer that neither version is intrinsically better than the other.


----------



## Chasint

fenixpollo said:


> ...'thought' is already a perfectly good noun form of the verb 'to think'...


Yes it is but that doesn't mean it should be the only one. There are many verbs in English that have more than one noun form - usually with distinct meanings*.  The nouns 'thought' and 'think' are not exact synonyms and have different functions. I feel that I have a richer vocabulary by having both available to me.


____________________________________________
*_Deliver_ has nouns _delivery_ and _deliverance_ for example.


----------



## Einstein

Apologies if I haven't re-read 440 posts to see whether the following has already been said:
In the "think" version, "another think coming" is a deliberate repetition of the verb "think" in the "if" clause and wouldn't make sense otherwise. We've discovered here that the "thing" version means something else and "another thing coming" shouldn't be dependent on the presence of "think" in the "if" clause and could be used with all kinds of other verbs and structures. We could therefore have:

If you hope to win, you've got another thing coming.
If that's what you believe, you've got another thing coming.
If you don't tidy your room, you've got another thing coming.
If you say that again, you've got another thing coming.

Is this so, or is it always used in association with a first clause containing "think"?


----------



## owlman5

Einstein said:


> Apologies if I haven't re-read 440 posts to see whether the following has already been said:
> In the "think" version, "another think coming" is a deliberate repetition of the verb "think" in the "if" clause and wouldn't make sense otherwise. We've discovered here that the "thing" version means something else and "another thing coming" shouldn't be dependent on the presence of "think" in the "if" clause and could be used with all kinds of other verbs and structures. We could therefore have:
> 
> If you hope to win, you've got another thing coming.
> If that's what you believe, you've got another thing coming.
> If you don't tidy your room, you've got another thing coming.
> If you say that again, you've got another thing coming.
> 
> Is this so, or is it always used in association with a first clause containing "think"?


You share my understanding of the "thingist's" arguments, Einstein.  On the rare occasions when I use the phrase, I always use "think" in the first clause.


----------



## Einstein

A PS to post 441:
I've done a quick Google search and found that "another thing coming" is used together with "think" or "thinks" a total of 6,940,000 times, while if I remove any reference to "think" (allowing also other possibilities) the score rises to 8,290,000. In other words only 1,350,000 uses not associated with "think/thinks". Some of these will be isolated phrases like song titles.
This seems to suggest, then, that "another thing coming" did originate in association with "think". Would that be possibile if it were an entirely different concept?


----------



## wandle

Einstein said:


> A PS to post 441:
> I've done a quick Google search and found that "another thing coming" is used together with "think" or "thinks" a total of 6,940,000 times, while if I remove any reference to "think" (allowing also other possibilities) the score rises to 8,290,000. In other words only 1,350,000 uses not associated with "think/thinks". Some of these will be isolated phrases like song titles.
> This seems to suggest, then, that "another thing coming" did originate in association with "think". Would that be possibile if it were an entirely different concept?


This suffers from two problems:

(1) It is well known that these millions of Google hits are bogus numbers. You have to take the trouble to click through to the final page to find the real figure, which turns outs to be tens or hundreds, not millions.

(2) If you search on "another thing coming" without "think" or "thinks", there is no guarantee that the hits returned are in any way relevant to our question. You would need to check each hit returned to see if the context were something like:
_'If you do that again, you have another thing coming'._ 
Sentences like these, as far as I know, do not occur. Yet they ought to be common, if the _Thing_ist argument were valid.

This last point has been made repeatedly in this thread.


----------



## simon123

Yes, even as a thingist I am familiar with think as a noun.  A think ≠ a thought.  A think means a process of thinking, which will include you having thoughts.  Having a thought implies one thought, having a think implies many.

Perhaps some people are resistant to think as a noun because they think it is being used as a synonym for a thought?

It still doesn't make the 'think' variant sound right to me, though.


----------



## simon123

Oh sorry, didn't realise there was another page of these.  Should have guessed, really.  My comments re: think as a noun apply to the last page's arguments.

In response to Wandle's post, I've not heard it in the context of '_If you do that again, you have another thing coming'.
_
However, I believe that is because it doesn't pertain to a current state of affairs, at least not as I read it.  On the other hand, I have heard it used with the first two types of sentences that Einstein mentions:

If you hope to win, you've got another thing coming.
If that's what you believe, you've got another thing coming.

Again, the difference between these ones and the second two is that they are about a current state of affairs.  These following two are about a future thing, and whilst I can't say they don't occur, I've never heard it used in this manner:

If you don't tidy your room, you've got another thing coming.
If you say that again, you've got another thing coming.


----------



## wandle

simon123 said:


> I have heard it used with the first two types of sentences that Einstein mentions:
> If you hope to win, you've got another thing coming.
> If that's what you believe, you've got another thing coming.
> 
> ... they are about a current state of affairs.  These following two are about a future thing, and whilst I can't say they don't occur, I've never heard it used in this manner:
> If you don't tidy your room, you've got another thing coming.
> If you say that again, you've got another thing coming.


What current state of affairs? 
'_If you hope_' and '_If that's what you believe_' refer to the other person's state of mind. The same applies to '_If you think that_'. 
This goes to confirm the hypothesis put forward long ago: that the 'thing' version is derivative from the 'think' version.
If this were not so, then the sentences referring to a future state of affairs would be as common as sentences referring to a current state.


----------



## Chasint

Cartoon of 'thing coming' View attachment 10867


(source http://vivianskvetch.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/dumb-things-people-say-mangling-of.html)


----------



## wandle

View attachment 10867
Priceless.


----------



## simon123

I agree with you that the preponderance of think or think-type sentences would tend to support the claim for primacy for the 'think' variant, at least in terms of time.  Perhaps the 'thing' variant gained in popularity due to its wider application.

However, without getting too philosophical here, because I believe thoughts are 'real', I believe there is a state of affairs about what someone is thinking, hoping, believing, etc.  I don't believe there is a state of affairs about what might potentially happen in the future.  I didn't realise that these beliefs in any way affected my use of the 'thing' variant, but it's nice to know it accords with my intuitions.

So, in conclusion (and I'm really going to have to go back to my work and stop scouring this thread!  Mind you, I talked to a Mormon yesterday to get out of doing some work), I think the 'thing' variant is entirely logical because the thing that you are thinking is what there is being referred to by the 'another'.  I also have heard the thing variant used in reference to actual states of affairs out in the world: "Sure he's employee of the month now, but just you wait till xyz comes out, he's got another thing coming!"

However, in my magnanimity, I am willing to concede that the 'think' variant makes sense, and may even have been first.  Unfortunately I can never use it due to my aesthetic abhorral of it, which, I admit, is based on nothing but prejudice.

I would still recommend that non-native speakers avoid using both variants in written English.


----------



## Chasint

simon123 said:


> ...
> If you don't tidy your room, you've got another thing coming.
> If you say that again, you've got another thing coming.


If thingism were consistent  I would expect the above two to appear as:


If you don't tidy your room, you've got a thing coming.
If you say that again, you've got a thing coming.

This would fit with the thingist idea of a _thing_ being a _mysterious threat_.

So, whether or not thingism is 'correct', it does lack consistency.


_____________________________________________________________________
On the other hand, thinkism only claims to work as a result of the repetition of the word 'think'.


----------



## wandle

The point is, those examples from *simon123* are sentences that do not occur in real life, as far as we know.


simon123 said:


> I've never heard it used in this manner:
> 
> If you don't tidy your room, you've got another thing coming.
> If you say that again, you've got another thing coming.


The fact that they do not occur goes to show that the 'thing' version is not original, but is derivative from the 'think' version, as *simon123* is now accepting (see posts 446, 447 and 450).


----------



## PaulQ

This is an interesting article on "Belief Disconfirmation Paradigm" that may explain some of the certainty held http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Belief_Disconfirmation_Paradigm


----------



## Chasint

fenixpollo said:


> ...The noun form of the verb 'to think' is 'a thought', not 'a think'. You say "I have a thought" or "A thought just occurred to me". *You wouldn't say "I just had a think" ..*. I can't recall any situation in which I've heard 'think' used as a noun...


Maybe this is the key to the whole argument because *I (Biffo) would indeed say "I just had a think."*, e.g. _"You know what? I just had a think about all this and I've decided you were right after all." _or _"You have been very naughty. Go to your room and have a good think about what you have just done."
_

So here is my 

*HYPOTHESIS*:

1. If you were brought up in a family/neighbourhood where 'think' was never used as a noun, you would naturally tend to hear "another thing coming"

2. If, on the other hand, you were brought up in a family/neighbourhood where 'think' was commonly used as a noun, you would naturally tend to hear "another think coming"


----------



## wandle

I remember being puzzled the first time I heard, '_You've got another think coming_'.  I understood 'think' as something you do, not something you have. My granddad had to explain it meant, 'You'll have to think again, change your mind'. I do not recall how old I was, maybe six, but that was when I learned that you could make a noun out of a verb and use it with 'have'.

Other verbs are used in the same way. 'Have a listen' and 'have a feel of' are not unusual.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/listen
_Have a listen to this! I've never heard anything like it before.
_
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...7-20+"have+a+feel+of+the+cloth"&hl=en&ct=clnk
_The very first thing you have to do is have a feel of the cloth._

http://www.perthdietclinic.com.au/article.asp?GroupID=20&ArticleID=513
_I even let her have a feel of the texture of each one_

http://www.scrummagazine.com/news/have-a-read-of-scrum-47/
_Have a read of SCRUM 47_ | The Scottish Club Rugby Union Magazine

I would understand 'have a ride', 'have a smoke', 'have a wash' and 'have a peek' in the same way.

These uses are generally colloquial:  and they can be expected to multiply on the web.

The basic principle of making a verb into a noun and using it with 'have' can of course be extended indefinitely in facetious or fantasy language.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

That doesn't work for me, Biffo. I'm not averse to a 'think', but would never use it in the context under discussion. It's just so square.

Rival hypothesis: Thingers are cloth-eared. Thinkists are mumblers.


----------



## Chasint

wandle said:


> ...
> I would understand 'have a ride', 'have a wash' and 'have a peek' in the same way.
> 
> These uses are generally colloquial...


This is an excellent point and I doubt that anyone would argue with "have a look".


----------



## Einstein

In reply to post 444:


wandle said:


> This suffers from two problems:
> 
> (1) It is well known that these millions of Google hits are bogus numbers. You have to take the trouble to click through to the final page to find the real figure, which turns outs to be tens or hundreds, not millions.


Yes, you're right that I didn't go on clicking long enough. The numbers usually come down earlier. I promise to be more diligent in future. However this doesn't refute the thinkist argument. In the vast majority of cases "another thing coming" is preceded by a clause containing "think(s)", as you yourself point out.



wandle said:


> (2) If you search on "another thing coming" without "think" or "thinks", there is no guarantee that the hits returned are in any way relevant to our question. You would need to check each hit returned to see if the context were something like:
> _'If you do that again, you have another thing coming'._
> Sentences like these, as far as I know, do not occur. Yet they ought to be common, if the _Thing_ist argument were valid.
> This last point has been made repeatedly in this thread.


I don't see why this is a "problem". I was making exactly the same point!

The thingists say that of my four sentences,
_If you hope to win, you've got another thing coming.
If that's what you believe, you've got another thing coming.
If you don't tidy your room, you've got another thing coming.
__If you say that again, you've got another thing coming,
_
the first two occur, but not the others. In other words even if "think" isn't mentioned they do refer to thinking in some way.

By the way (and I say this to both sides), although "think" is a noun, its use is not identical to "thought". I wouldn't say "I must have a thought about that", or "What are your thinks about this question?"


----------



## lucas-sp

Biffo said:


> *HYPOTHESIS*:
> 
> 1. If you were brought up in a family/neighbourhood where 'think' was never used as a noun, you would naturally tend to hear "another thing coming"
> 
> 2. If, on the other hand, you were brought up in a family/neighbourhood where 'think' was commonly used as a noun, you would naturally tend to hear "another think coming"


Whatever. In many ways, this is getting very tiring - many people here are just looking for more ways to demonstrate that "think" or "thing" is the erroneous version of the phrase. Biffo's claim would imply that _everyone_ says and writes "another think coming" and then a small percentage of speakers, deformed by their childhoods of neglect and abuse, end up learning it wrong. Two problems, though: First, not everyone says or writes "another think coming"; many people who use the phrase say or write "another thing coming." Secondly, it's possible to be familiar with the noun "think" _and simultaneously_ be unfamiliar with the phrase "another think coming." I, for instance, am familiar with the noun "think"; my parents use it humorously from time to time (I would never use it because it sounds too old-fashioned); still _neither I nor my parents _use "think" in the "another think/g coming" phrase. There's a much simpler
*
HYPOTHESIS
*
1. If you learn English from/with/around people who employ the phrase "another thing coming," you will tend to understand, use, write, and in turn hear that phrase; while
2. If you learn English from/with/around people who employ the phrase "another think coming," you will tend to understand, use, write, and in turn hear that phrase.

This clearly passes the Occam's razor test. Why have two or more laws to explain the phenomenon when you could have just one? (Well, obviously if you accept this much more elegant explanation you have to accept that there exist speakers - many of them! - who say or write "another thing coming," not in error, but completely functionally and with just as much pleasure and folksiness as those who say "another think coming." And for some reason, accepting this obvious fact continues to seem hard to do.)

The most telling piece of evidence to me is that the New York Times allows for both spellings of "another think/g coming" (that's what they are, people - two alternate _spellings_ of the same phrase). Maybe that's too American for some of the posters on this thread - but I thought wandle suggested that the phrase was "originally" American?

But maybe I'll just ask a question that's been on my mind. Are any "think-ists" younger than 30?


----------



## Einstein

> Whatever. In many ways, this is getting very tiring - many people here are just looking for more ways to demonstrate that "think" or "thing" is the erroneous version of the phrase.


I agree. It's probably time to leave this thread and think about other things (or thing about other thinks).
About under-30s: I know plenty of under-30s, but none of them are native English-speakers. And it occurs to me that it would be very difficult to find non-natives using either of these expressions, however good their general level of English!


----------



## lucas-sp

Einstein said:


> ... it would be very difficult to find non-natives using either of these expressions, however good their general level of English!


Why? I found one, on my first try. I think that fluent non-natives are familiar with the phrase, even if they do not use it themselves. (Then again, I would put myself in the camp of "being familiar with the phrase without using it myself.")

So, any "think"-ists under 30?


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> ... Biffo's claim would imply that _everyone_ says and writes "another think coming" and then a small percentage of speakers, deformed by their childhoods of neglect and abuse, end up learning it wrong...


That's quite amusing but false.

It wasn't a claim, it was a hypothesis inspired by a post from *fenixpollo* who was denying the existence of 'think' as a noun. Unlike you, I don't make any judgement about *fenixpollo* or his childhood - I'm simply accepting what he himself said.

My hypothesis doesn't even say who is right or wrong. It was simply an attempt at explaining the coexistence of two forms. Others have already given evidence against the hypothesis and so I no longer think of it as being entirely viable.


----------



## EStjarn

I, non-native me, belong to the thingist camp. I have picked up the phrase at some point in the past, probably from the movies. I think that is how it often works for learners: you hear someone use a phrase, you like it or get curious about it, you add it to your vocabulary. I don't think learners choose one variety over another on basis of what seems most logical. On the contrary, when it comes to idioms, the less logical is not seldom more appealing than the logical. (Thus, I have no problem with 'another'.)


----------



## Chasint

EStjarn said:


> I, non-native me, belong to the thingist camp. I have picked up the phrase at some point in the past, probably from the movies...


Interesting. What convinced you that the word was 'thing' when you saw the movies? A lot of native speakers say they can't easily hear the difference.


----------



## timpeac

Biffo said:


> Interesting. What convinced you that the word was 'thing' when you saw the movies? A lot of native speakers say they can't easily hear the difference.


Well - I think it must be a bit more than just not being able easily to tell the difference as so many people here did not know the other form existed at all and yet we know that some people say one and some say the other, even in the same geographical place. This suggests to me that people - non-natives included, I would think - are predisposed to hear one form or the other no matter what is actually said - presumably based on some of the grammatical issues discussed above or the context the hearer feels the phrase is said in.


----------



## Chasint

timpeac said:


> Well - I think it must be a bit more than just not being able easily to tell the difference as so many people here did not know the other form existed at all and yet we know that some people say one and some say the other, even in the same geographical place. This suggests to me that people - non-natives included, I would think - are predisposed to hear one form or the other no matter what is actually said - presumably based on some of the grammatical issues discussed above or the context the hearer feels the phrase is said in.


Most native speakers presumably first hear the phrase in childhood and may have no memory of the occasion. I was hoping that EStjarn learned it as an adult and might be able to remember.


----------



## EStjarn

Biffo said:


> Interesting. What convinced you that the word was 'thing' when you saw the movies? A lot of native speakers say they can't easily hear the difference.



I suppose 'think', unless it had been pronounced very clearly, would have been too farfetched an alternative since at the time it did not exist in my vocabulary as a noun. I haven't considered there existed an alternative until quite recently through this thread.


----------



## panjandrum

lucas-sp said:


> ...
> But maybe I'll just ask a question that's been on my mind. Are any "think-ists" younger than 30?


I asked my daughter and her daughter about this today - one just over thirty, the other 12.
They laughed at my suggestion that the word was "think".
But what, I asked, is this other thing that is coming.
They didn't specify, but declared it to be something very unpleasant, a nasty consequence of the initial belief.

Returning home, I asked MrsP.
A risky venture, as she is prone to scathing comments about my bizarre obsession with language and WR in particular.
After some grovelling, she declared herself in favour of "think", but pointed out that it is not an expression she had ever used, or would ever use, so that the conversation was totally pointless.


----------



## Loob

....


----------



## fenixpollo

If I may be so bold, lucas, I'd like to expand on your hypothesis:





lucas-sp said:


> *HYPOTHESIS
> *
> 1. If you learn English from/with/around people who employ the phrase "another thing coming," you will tend to understand, use, write, and in turn hear that phrase; while
> 2. If you learn English from/with/around people who employ the phrase "another think coming," you will tend to understand, use, write, and in turn hear that phrase.


3. If you learn English from/with/around people who employ the phrase "another think coming," but due to the combination of the velar n + /k/, you hear it as "another thing coming", you will tend to understand, use and write the "thing" version of the phrase.


----------



## PaulQ

As a matter of interest, I visited my elder son last evening - I asked him... "*Think or thing?*" ... He said *Thing*!!!!, whereas my wife and I both say *think*.

I can only think that he learned it from the school he attended (and I am now in the process of suing them.) 

If he thinks he is still in my will, he has another *think* coming! (Certainly not another *'thing' *coming- as he will not get *a thing*!)


----------



## wandle

fenixpollo said:


> If I may be so bold, lucas, I'd like to expand on your hypothesis:3. If you learn English from/with/around people who employ the phrase "another think coming," but due to the combination of the velar n + /k/, you hear it as "another thing coming", you will tend to understand, use and write the "thing" version of the phrase.


That is a very real possibility. Indeed, it is probably what has happened in the course of time.
The interesting thing is that this is not likely to have worked the other way round.

When someone says 'another thing coming', that is not so likely to be misheard as 'think' by a child or by someone with no preconceptions.

On the other hand, when someone says 'another think coming', then (a), unless they are careful, what they say may actually come out as 'thing coming' and (b) even if they are careful, they may still be misheard as saying 'thing': particularly when the listener is a child.

This shows that while it is quite possible for 'another think coming' to evolve from one generation to the next by natural processes into 'another thing coming', it is much less likely for 'thing' to have evolved into 'think'.

This, as mentioned earlier in the thread, is a good argument on its own for believing that 'another think coming' came first.


PaulQ said:


> I can only think that he learned it from the school he attended (and I am now in the process of suing them.)


So *PaulQ*, it may even be you that he picked it up from!


----------



## Couch Tomato

EStjarn said:


> I, non-native me, belong to the thingist camp. I have picked up the phrase at some point in the past, probably from the movies.



Same here, though I'm by no means a dyed-in-the-wool 'thingist' - I am willing to change my mind . I learnt this phrase many years ago and I didn't know that there was a "think" version as well until I happened upon this thread. 

My initial reaction, before reading any of the comments was 'Think or thing? Of course it's thing!!! Are you kidding me?!?' . Alas, I've arrived at the conclusion, after reading some of the replies, that the "thing" version is less logical .



PaulQ said:


> If he thinks he is still in my will, he has another *think* coming! (Certainly not another *'thing' *coming- as he will not get *a thing*!)


----------



## timpeac

wandle said:


> That is a very real possibility. Indeed, it is probably what has happened in the course of time.
> The interesting thing is that this is not likely to have worked the other way round.
> 
> When someone says 'another thing coming', that is not so likely to be misheard as 'think' by a child or by someone with no preconceptions.


I don't think this is true. The following /k/ of "coming" would also assimilate the /ŋ/﻿ of "thing" towards /k/ too. I think that both "thing coming" and "think coming" are going to sound almost identical in normal speech no matter which you mean to say.


----------



## wandle

timpeac said:


> I think that both "thing coming" and "think coming" are going to sound almost identical in normal speech no matter which you mean to say.



It is perfectly possible to pronounce 'think coming' differently from 'thing coming' and many people do so. However, as mentioned above, in many cases, the speaker will not be careful enough and the result will sound like 'thing coming'. Even when the speaker articulates carefully, the listener may mishear it as 'thing coming'. This will be especially true when the listener is a child or someone new to this expression.

In other words, in a great many cases, particularly for those who have never heard the expression before, the listener will hear 'thing coming' even though the speaker intended 'think coming'. The reverse however will not be true. 'Thing coming' will not be heard as 'think coming'.

Three factors need to be present for 'think coming' to be heard: there need to be two 'k' sounds, they need to be sounded distinctly and there needs to be a pause, even if very short, between the two. A certain effort needs to be made to meet these three conditions. In other words, saying 'think coming' clearly enough to distinguish it from 'thing coming' requires an effort: not a great one, but still some additional effort every time.

One of the principles of pronunciation change and word change within a language is that where there are two similar sounds occurring in similar contexts, and where one requires more effort to say it than the other, there will be a tendency for the easier sound to replace the harder one: but not vice versa. 

Water left to itself flows downhill, not up; and pronunciation change in everyday speech tends to move away from the harder sound towards the easier one; not the other way round.  There will therefore be a constant tendency for the sound of 'think coming' to shift towards 'thing coming' but there will no such tendency for the sound of 'thing coming' to shift towards 'think coming'.

This effect will tend to occur on the average across the population. Even though the difference in the speaking effort involved is small, the effect will nevertheless be significant when it occurs millions of times;  and it will tend to be more significant across the generation gap: that is, when the speaker is an adult and the listener a child.


----------



## Einstein

The main difference between "thing coming" and "think coming" is that in the second case the voice stops before the "c". I think it's noticeable if you listen for it, the two pronunciations are not identical. However, if you're convinced that the pronunciation is one rather than the other, you won't be listening for the difference.


wandle said:


> Water left to itself flows downhill, not up; and pronunciation change in everyday speech tends to move away from the harder sound towards the easier one; not the other way round.  There will therefore be a constant tendency for the sound of 'think coming' to shift towards 'thing coming' but there will no such tendency for the sound of 'thing coming' to shift towards 'think coming'.


I agree with this.


----------



## wandle

Einstein said:


> if you're convinced that the pronunciation is one rather than the other, you won't be listening for the difference.


That is true. However, someone who hears the expression for the first time comes to it fresh and will have no pre-existing belief about it. This is the case for children and also for learners of English as a second language. 

In this situation the tendency for the pronunciation to shift from 'think coming' to 'thing coming' will naturally take effect from one generation to the next. At the same time, as explained earlier, there will be no tendency for 'thing coming' to be heard as 'think coming'. Thus if the original expression had been 'thing coming', there would be no tendency towards change and we would expect the 'thing coming' version to be the only one or else greatly predominant.

On the other hand, if the original expression had been 'think coming', then we would expect a stage to be reached where both expressions had considerable currency: and that is what we now find.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

Well wandle, although I tend intuitively to similar conclusions with regard to the expressions under discussion, I think that much of the argumentation you provide is wispy.
Do you really stand by this?





> However, someone who hears the expression for the first time comes to it  fresh and will have no pre-existing belief about it. This is the case  for children and also for learners of English as a second language.


----------



## wandle

The tendency for pronunciation to shift from the harder form to the easier form is a well-recognised linguistic phenomenon.

Certainly, when a child, or a new learner, meets an expression for the first time, it is true by definition that they have no preconception about it.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

> Certainly, when a child, or a new learner, meets an expression for the  first time, it is true by definition that they have no preconception  about it.


Spoken like a true philosopher ... though not sounding remotely like a linguist.
You'd have to be proper tabula rasa to have no preconceptions about your interlocutor's next utterance 
In your 'philosopher's' scenario you've been living alone on the dark side of the moon, then one dark night, much to your dismay, a visitor shows up, and makes an utterance.
'You've got another THIN* coming'.
Only trouble is there's no atmosphere - so you couldn't hear them.


----------



## The Prof

I am loving this thread! (Now there's another expression that will raise a few hackles!  ).

Like just about everyone else, I had never realised that two versions existed, and like most other lifelong 'thinkists', I was very surprised to learn that many people actually said 'thing'!

In common with PaulQ, my natural reaction was to turn to my nearest and dearest to see what they say. Mr Prof's reaction took me by surprise - he had to thing think about it, then decided that he probably used 'thing' (shock, horror). However, he then said that he wasn't sure which he used (which seems even odder, to me!). However, I have just asked him again today and he has come down firmly on the side of 'think'.  All that this proves - apart from the fact that he might be very open to suggestion - is that not all native speakers are even aware themselves what they say!

Would this question ever have arisen if no one had ever seen or used a written version, I wonder?  And how many of us had ever seen / used this expression in writing prior to this? Writing as we speak is a relatively recent phenomenon, I think. Perhaps that means that we can expect to discover many other hitherto unnoticed differences in the near future. I look forward to the heated debates that they will provoke.


----------



## wandle

Beryl from Northallerton said:


> You'd have to be proper tabula rasa to have no preconceptions about your interlocutor's next utterance


You may (or may not) have an expectation, which may (or may not) be true, about what someone is going to say.
However, you cannot have a pre-existing idea about an expression you have never heard.
For every word or phrase we know, there had to be a first time we met it.


----------



## PaulQ

So, wandle, do you also dismiss the idea of a genetic predisposition? Yet Beryl has a solid hypothesis (with which I agree) at http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=87385&page=23&p=12758908#post12758908


----------



## Chasint

wandle said:


> You may (or may not) have an expectation, which may (or may not) be true, about what someone is going to say.
> *However, you cannot have a pre-existing idea about an expression you have never heard.*
> For every word or phrase we know, there had to be a first time we met it.


But you can, and that brings me neatly back to my hypothesis #454

My point then was that those people who already had the noun 'think' in their vocabulary (not just as a component of the expression we are discussing) would be more predisposed to hear 'think' the first time they heard the expression. However those people (such as fenixpollo)  who had never heard 'think' being used as a noun under any circumstances would naturally hear 'thing'.


----------



## wandle

PaulQ said:


> So, wandle, do you also dismiss the idea of a genetic predisposition?


Do you mean a genetic predisposition to say 'think' instead of 'thing'?


----------



## wandle

Biffo said:


> But you can, and that brings me neatly back to my hypothesis #454
> My point then was that those people who already had the noun 'think' in their vocabulary (not just as a component of the expression we are discussing) would be more predisposed to hear 'think'. Those people (such as fenixpollo)  who had never heard 'think' being used as a noun under any circumstances would naturally hear 'thing'.


These are people who have preconceptions based on the version they have heard before. 
This is not the same situation as those who have heard neither version before. We were all in that position once.

Your hypothesis at 454, namely that people who have learned one version will tend to hear that even when the other is spoken, is perfectly valid.

That hypothesis in no way conflicts with the point that pronunciation will tend to shift over time from 'think coming' to 'thing coming' but not the other way round.


----------



## Chasint

wandle said:


> ...
> Your hypothesis at 454, namely that people who have learned one version will tend to hear that even when the other is spoken, is perfectly valid...


You misunderstood my hypothesis.  I did not say anything about learning 'one version'. I referred to people who were already familiar with 'think' as an isolated noun. 

Example:
A child who had heard the phrase _"Go and have a good *think* about what you just did."_  prior to hearing the phrase _"...another think coming."_ would easily assimilate the new expression.


----------



## timpeac

wandle said:


> It is perfectly possible to pronounce 'think coming' differently from 'thing coming' and many people do so. However, as mentioned above, in many cases, the speaker will not be careful enough and the result will sound like 'thing coming'. Even when the speaker articulates carefully, the listener may mishear it as 'thing coming'. This will be especially true when the listener is a child or someone new to this expression.



I agree with all of this, and also think that it applies to "thing coming" as well as "think coming".

I think what you're missing is that the fact "thing coming" and "think coming" sound the same in normal speed speech (whichever is more assimilated towards the other) means that both have the same chance as being interpreted as the other. The only difference is that "think coming" has a geminate consonant, which is measure of the speed of the whole phrase. There is never a pause, no matter how short.

You say

_In other words, saying 'think coming' clearly enough to distinguish it  from 'thing coming' requires an effort: not a great one, but still some  additional effort every time._

and again, I don't disagree with this. But this effort would naturally be made so infrequently (only if someone were saying something like "no - I said you have another _think_ coming..." that its natural pronunciation is so close to "thing coming" that "thing coming" could equally be interpreted as "think coming".


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

PaulQ said:


> So, wandle, do you also dismiss the idea of a genetic predisposition? Yet Beryl has a solid hypothesis (with which I agree) at http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=87385&page=23&p=12758908#post12758908


Oh, I don't think that wandle and I are so very far apart on this:





wandle said:


> It is perfectly possible to pronounce 'think coming' differently from 'thing coming' and many people do so.  However, as mentioned above, in many cases, the speaker will not be  careful enough and the result will sound like 'thing coming'. Even when  the speaker articulates carefully, the listener may mishear it as 'thing  coming'. This will be especially true when the listener is a child or  someone new to this expression.


flattery^^


----------



## wandle

Re *timpeac* post 488:

The more you show that the distinctive features of 'think coming' compared to 'thing coming' will tend to be lost in ordinary speech (which in my view you are somewhat overstating), the more you are confirming two points:
(a) that when 'think coming' is intended to be spoken, the sound of 'thing coming' will tend to be heard; and 
(b) that when 'thing coming' is intended to be spoken, the sound of 'think coming' will not be heard;
all the above in reference to listeners who have never heard either version before.


----------



## timpeac

wandle said:


> The more you show that the distinctive features of 'think coming' compared to 'thing coming' will tend to be lost in ordinary speech (which in my view you are somewhat overstating), the more you are confirming two points:
> (a) that when 'think coming' is intended to be spoken, the sound of 'thing coming' will tend to be heard; and
> (b) that when 'thing coming' is intended to be spoken, the sound of 'think coming' will not be heard;
> all the above in reference to listeners who have never heard either version before.



I think we're in danger of just repeating our points back to each other here. You've said this before and I can't think of what else to reply to this other that what I've said before, than I disagree that "thing" will necessarily be the word heard. As "thing coming" and "think coming" sound the same someone will hear "thinK coming" (where K is an allophone that could cover either k or g) and hear the word which makes most sense to them based on how they interpret the surrounding context and on other grammatical considerations such as whether they consider "think" to be a viable noun on the one hand and whether they view "_another _thing" as incongruous on the other.

I suspect this difference of opinion comes down to how similar, or different, we consider the pronunciations of "thing coming" and "think coming" to be.


----------



## Chasint

With regard to clarity of pronunciation - It is noticeable that in early movies of the talkie era that the speech of actors was much more crisp and precise than nowadays. Given a tendency towards a slurring of speech in general, it is perhaps not surprising that we are losing the ability to distinguish between 'think coming ' and 'thing coming'.


----------



## wandle

timpeac said:


> As "thing coming" and "think coming" sound the same


Sorry to contradict, but they don't. 

There is obviously a tendency for the distinctive sound features of 'think coming' as against 'thing coming' to be lost in ordinary speech, but any reasonably competent speaker of English knows perfectly well how to pronounce the two expressions distinctly and knows that they have different meanings.

The key point is that the tendency of pronunciation to shift from one generation to the next only works in the direction from 'think coming' towards 'thing coming' and not the other way round.

That is what shows that the original form of the expression was 'think': otherwise, today it would all be 'thing' and there would be no discussion.


----------



## PaulQ

wandle said:


> but any reasonably competent speaker of English


And herein lies the difficulty - errors are created by the negligent and may be perpetuated in good faith.


----------



## wandle

PaulQ said:


> errors are created by the negligent and may be perpetuated in good faith.


Of course: which just goes to reinforce the conclusion reached in post 493 and earlier.


----------



## timpeac

wandle said:


> Sorry to contradict, but they don't.


As I say above I think this is the crux of our disagreement. In my opinion they do.



wandle said:


> There is obviously a tendency for the distinctive sound features of 'think coming' as against 'thing coming' to be lost in ordinary speech, but any reasonably competent speaker of English knows perfectly well how to pronounce the two expressions distinctly and knows that they have different meanings.


Of course they know how to pronounce them differently if they have to, and know they have different meanings. That doesn't change the fact that people don't usually make the distinction between "thing coming" and "think coming" in speech.


wandle said:


> The key point is that the tendency of pronunciation to shift from one generation to the next only works in the direction from 'think coming' towards 'thing coming' and not the other way round.
> 
> That is what shows that original form of the expression was 'think': otherwise, it would all be 'thing'.


But it doesn't. I've said it before but as you're making the same point again I'll repeat it. If "thing coming" and "think coming" sound the same (and I think it is this "if" that is really the difference of opinion) then why would someone make only one interpretation of the sound? I'll try to draw an analogy of sorts. I know of a "peace house". I've only heard it said not written so I don't actually know if it is really "piece house". As they both sound the same I can't know which one is actually meant. I presume, from the spelling, that "peace" and "piece" were once pronounced differently. Which pronunciation moved more towards the other or whether they both shifted I don't know - and even if I did it wouldn't be a relevant factor in deciding whether I hear "piece" or "peace" today.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

Not quite. There's also the business of some people considering, and  possibly from quite a tender age, that 'another thing' is a functional  group unto itself.
I'm sure timpeac will have at some point uttered  within earshot of his children 'And another thing ... '. I'd say they  were much more likely to have encountered that prior to having  heard/misheard (in tim's case)_ 'you've got another thin* coming' _- which let's face it, has limited application.
Also,  there's the business of kids ironing out irregularity. The 'think'  version contains a clunky grammatical twist (some have referred to this  as humour).
The plastic brain on apprehending this would dismiss it  as irregularity, in the same way that it dismisses irregular past  participles and the like - that's why these things have to be drummed  in. _(the 'think' version is pidgin, the 'thing' version is creole)_
The  parent, on hearing the child's misapprehended (and 'corrected') version  would be unlikely to spot their child's 'error' for two reasons:
-the  parent would certainly be in possession of a massive preconception -  unless they've read this thread from beginning to end (highly unlikely).
-the child is most unlikely to use a confrontational trope of this sort to its parent.

So, hypothesis amended: thinkists are cloth-eared as well as being mumblers. _(Cross-posted with timpeac)_


----------



## wandle

Biffo said:


> A child who had heard the phrase _"Go and have a good *think* about what you just did."_  prior to hearing the phrase _"...another think coming."_ would easily assimilate the new expression.


Certainly: there is no suggestion that 'think coming' cannot be passed on. 

The point is that on the average there will be a tendency for the listener who has heard neither version before to hear 'thing coming' more often than 'think coming' (no matter which version was intended by the speaker).

Incidentally, I see nothing in post 496 or 497 that makes against this conclusion.


----------



## JulianStuart

I remain a staunch thinkist*, although several pages back I began to understand that the _thing_ the thingists were describing was not a single thought or even session of thoughts (aka a "think") but rather the _consequence_ of the current way of thinking.  However, I have not seen any cogent explanation of how "another" was accepted instead of the "some" that seems more logical to me as the prefix for this "thing". (I appreciate that not all people rely on logic as much as this INTJ)

*The printed book data and the logic add to the fact that I first heard the think version (and recall thinking it sounded American, to an English child with a fascination for words!).  I have no problem with the similar sounds as the explanation for the change and the impact a first hearing provides on the memory and patterns laid down by the brain.  For the longest time, my favourite misapprehension was Jimi Hendrix's "Excuse me while I kiss this guy" (Well, it was the late '60s )


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Well, after 25 pages of vigorous debate, let me just add that I've never heard of "another thin_k_ coming"...so there.


----------



## EStjarn

Biffo said:


> A child who had heard the phrase _"Go and have a good *think* about what you just did."_ prior to hearing the phrase _"...another think coming."_ would easily assimilate the new expression.





timpeac said:


> I think what you're missing is that the fact "thing coming" and "think coming" sound the same in normal speed speech (whichever is more assimilated towards the other) means that both have the same chance as being interpreted as the other.



Providing a child is familiar with 'think' (n), how often could we expect he actually use it compared to 'thing'? For example, could we speculate that if the child is, say, seven, he would use it once for every thousand times he uses 'thing' (in thought, speech or writing)? If so, is it fair to say that, when the child hears the phrase under discussion for the first time, 'think' and 'thing' both have the same chance to be interpreted as the other?





JulianStuart said:


> However, I have not seen any cogent explanation of how "another" was accepted instead of the "some" that seems more logical to me as the prefix for this "thing".



This, to me, is but another support for that the 'thing' version derived from the supposedly more logical 'think' version. (To this thingist, the thinkists present the most coherent reasons for why their version would be the original one.)


----------



## timpeac

EStjarn said:


> Providing a child is familiar with 'think' (n), how often could we expect he actually use it compared to 'thing'? For example, could we speculate that if the child is, say, seven, he would use it once for every thousand times he uses 'thing' (in thought, speech or writing)? If so, is it fair to say that, when the child hears the phrase under discussion for the first time, 'think' and 'thing' both have the same chance to be interpreted as the other?


I'm not sure how much the frequency of usage of a given word will contribute towards it being more likely to be heard. My point there was that phonologically there is no reason for one to supplant the other. I would also note that even if "thing" as a noun is more common than "think" as a noun, in the particular phrase we are discussing the word has just been used, albeit as a verb, so that might perhaps contribute towards it being heard.


----------



## Forero

JulianStuart said:


> I remain a staunch thinkist*, although several pages back I began to understand that the _thing_ the thingists were describing was not a single thought or even session of thoughts (aka a "think") but rather the _consequence_ of the current way of thinking.  However, I have not seen any cogent explanation of how "another" was accepted instead of the "some" that seems more logical to me as the prefix for this "thing". (I appreciate that not all people rely on logic as much as this INTJ)


It is quite simply another thing meaning a different thing, not an additional thing after some prior thing. Think of is as something like karma. What goes around comes around and when it does it may turn out to be something other than what you expect. No joke, no play on words.





> *The printed book data and the logic add to the fact that I first heard the think version (and recall thinking it sounded American, to an English child with a fascination for words!).  I have no problem with the similar sounds as the explanation for the change and the impact a first hearing provides on the memory and patterns laid down by the brain.  For the longest time, my favourite misapprehension was Jimi Hendrix's "Excuse me while I kiss this guy" (Well, it was the late '60s )


In my part of the world, _think coming_ and _thing coming_ do not sound the same. I have already mentioned when I first heard _think coming_ and all of us heard exactly that, even though it was not the version we thought was "normal". I thought the speaker was being creative, but others thought she was making an error. This was in the early 1970s.


----------



## dreamlike

Just for the record, I vividly remember coming across "you've got another think coming" when reading some British piece of writing, during writing classes at my Uni. 
This is just to say.


----------



## timpeac

For the record, I just read on facebook someone write "this kid is somethink amazing" about a certain video. Not sure how many conclusions we can draw from that, but it does show that instinctive confusion between thing and think is wider than with the phrase under discussion. I say instinctive because I'm sure that this is the type of typo/quick error and if he'd reread what he'd written he would have spotted it. Or in fact - based on this thread - perhaps there are going to be lots of supporters to say that is actually the correct phrase.


----------



## The Prof

timpeac said:


> For the record, I just read on facebook someone write "this kid is somethink amazing" about a certain video. Not sure how many conclusions we can draw from that, but it does show that instinctive confusion between thing and think is wider than with the phrase under discussion. I say instinctive because I'm sure that this is the type of typo/quick error and if he'd reread what he'd written he would have spotted it. Or in fact - based on this thread - perhaps there are going to be lots of supporters to say that is actually the correct phrase.



I personally wouldn't read too much into that. The only thing that surprises me there is that it didn't say _'some*f*ink'_, given that (assuming that what I hear on TV is representative of its population as a whole) a huge swathe of southern England now seems to be inhabited by '_fink_-ists'.  
However, I do take your point about the potential for confusion.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

I was wondering whether any of you 'thinkers' out there take issue with the following expression: 'But that's another thing (entirely)'.


----------



## djmc

It is purely a question of usage. Logic has nothing to do with it. But if you think that I agree with you you'll have another think coming.


----------



## The Prof

Beryl from Northallerton said:


> I was wondering whether any of you 'thinkers' out there take issue with the following expression: 'But that's another thing (entirely)'.



Not at all.  I use it quite happily, as the 'thing'  in that expression simply means another 'issue' or 'matter'. At least, that's how I have always used it.


----------



## JulianStuart

Forero said:


> It is quite simply another thing meaning a different thing, not an additional thing after some prior thing. Think of is as something like karma. What goes around comes around and when it does it may turn out to be something other than what you expect. No joke, no play on words.


I still don't get what the first thing is - unless there are lots of things that have happened to you and another will soon.  Then the "You've got another one coming" doesn't add anything new to the prediction of the future that is influenced by the way the person thinks.   We always have things coming in life whether we think X or not.  So we always have another thing coming, whether we think X or not.  The word "another" requires something to be "other" than.  
"If you think X, then something will be coming your way as a result" - this is another way of saying what the 
"thingists" mean, unless I'm mistaken (has been known). My problem with the thing explanation is not that it's a thing, but that it's _another_ thing, rather than something or something different or a different thing.


----------



## Forero

JulianStuart said:


> I still don't get what the first thing is - unless there are lots of things that have happened to you and another will soon.  Then the "You've got another one coming" doesn't add anything new to the prediction of the future that is influenced by the way the person thinks.   We always have things coming in life whether we think X or not.  So we always have another thing coming, whether we think X or not.  The word "another" requires something to be "other" than.
> "If you think X, then something will be coming your way as a result" - this is another way of saying what the
> "thingists" mean, unless I'm mistaken (has been known). My problem with the thing explanation is not that it's a thing, but that it's _another_ thing, rather than something or something different or a different thing.


What is to come does not presuppose any previous thing's having come. _Another_ in "another thing coming" does not mean "additional" but "different". You seem to be expecting some future that perhaps will never come. Something else is coming your way instead (not in addition), some other thing that I perhaps expect but you apparently don't. You are counting on one of, say, three possibilities coming to pass, but there is in fact another possibility that you have neglected to consider: an inevitable, if unexpected, possibility. It is "another" because you have not allowed for it.

You may be presuming a world in which you can ... and untold blessings will be laid in your lap, but the real world is sending quite another thing your way. You have it coming.

This other thing is no more a result of your thinking, imagining, or presuming than the thinkists' "think" is a result of the previous "think".

But neither is this other thing another edition of your thinking, imagining or presuming. As I see it the two expressions have different underlying literal meanings and are not entirely interchangeable.

If you use "another think coming", you need to include a previous "think", but in my opinion beginning with "If you think ..." does not preclude using "another thing coming". "Another thing coming" works just as well with "think", "imagine", "presume", "expect", and other verbs.

"Piece house" and "peace house" sound exactly alike, but "pea souse" is a little different. "Another thing coming" and "another think coming" are also a little different.

As to the history of these expressions, I would expect "another thing coming" or "something else coming" to have existed as a phrase, with a meaning similiar to what I have described, before the "If you ..., then you have ..." construction came into vogue. Then "another 'think' coming" would have come to be as an intentional pun based on "another thing coming" under the influence of a previous "if you think". After all that, "If you think ..., you have another thing coming" would have developed as a "correction", for use in less informal contexts, to the "think" version. Where else would talk of a "think" coming have come from?

If this hypothesis is correct, then I would expect to see a reasonable facsimile of "another thing coming" in print before the first occurrence of "another think coming".


----------



## JamesM

And have you found such an occurrence?


----------



## wandle

As far as I know, 'you've got another thing coming' is hardly found in other contexts, but usually comes after 'If you think that...'.  
This suggests that it is derived from the saying 'another think coming': that it is an altered version of the other expression.


----------



## Forero

JamesM said:


> And have you found such an occurrence?


Not yet. And I am not familiar enough with corpus searches to run a quick search for facsimiles.

Of course proving there is no such occurrence would be even harder.


----------



## JamesM

Yes, but it seems like at least one example is required to turn the hypothesis into a working theory.


----------



## Chasint

Forero said:


> ..._Another_ in "another thing coming" does not mean "additional" but "different"...



That makes excellent sense except that, if that is the case surely we should find lots of instances of "If you think that you've got a different thing coming"

Google ngram finds not one single instance.


----------



## JustKate

wandle said:


> As far as I know, 'you've got another thing coming' is hardly found in other contexts, but usually comes after 'If you think that...'.
> This suggests that it is derived from the saying 'another think coming': that it is an altered version of the other expression.



"You've got another thing coming" does usually come after "If you think that," but it's not hard to find exceptions. Here are some examples that a quick-and-dirty Google search turned up (in addition to many discussions about thing vs. think):
"If you have any illusions that the entertainment business is anything more or less than that, you've got another thing coming."
"If you don't believe that Xxxxxx learned from that, you've got another thing coming."
"Any health junkie will tell you that you've got another thing coming if you assume that this is just another health drink."
"So-and-so has another thing coming" (several different versions of this).

Which isn't to say that I don't agree that "another thing coming" probably was derived from "another think coming," because I do agree. But 
I do suggest that whatever its origin, it has diverged somewhat from them.


----------



## PaulQ

Forero said:


> What is to come does not presuppose any previous thing's having come. _Another_ in "another thing coming" does not mean "additional" but "different".


“If you enjoyed that apple, have a different one.” – Unlikely; “If you enjoyed that apple, have a further one.” Probable.


----------



## JamesM

JustKate said:


> "You've got another thing coming" does usually come after "If you think that," but it's not hard to find exceptions. Here are some examples that a quick-and-dirty Google search turned up (in addition to many discussions about thing vs. think):
> "If you have any illusions that the entertainment business is anything more or less than that, you've got another thing coming."
> "If you don't believe that Xxxxxx learned from that, you've got another thing coming."
> "Any health junkie will tell you that you've got another thing coming if you assume that this is just another health drink."
> "So-and-so has another thing coming" (several different versions of this).
> 
> Which isn't to say that I don't agree that "another thing coming" probably was derived from "another think coming," because I do agree. But
> I do suggest that whatever its origin, it has diverged somewhat from them.



Three out of four fall into the same category for me as "think".  They are "have illusions", "don't believe that", "you assume that".  So would phrases like "under the impression that", "have any designs that", "have the gall to expect that" and many others.   The fourth one seems genuinely different.  I wouldn't say "Jeff has another think coming" out of the blue with no other context.   That fourth one relates back to someone's earlier comment about the broader nature of "another thing coming", to my way of thinking.

I don't think this thread will ever come to a resolution.  Then again, I may have another think coming.


----------



## JustKate

JamesM said:


> Three out of four fall into the same category for me as "think". They are "have illusions", "don't believe that", "you assume that". So would phrases like "under the impression that", "have any designs that", "have the gall to expect that" and many others.  The fourth one seems genuinely different. I wouldn't say "Jeff has another think coming" out of the blue with no other context. That fourth one relates back to someone's earlier comment about the broader nature of "another thing coming", to my way of thinking.
> 
> I don't think this thread will ever come to a resolution. Then again, I may have another think coming.



I agree that they "fall into the same category," but my point is that the fact that non-think constructions are relatively easy to find demonstrates that the expression has, for some, moved quite a distance away from the original joke. What makes the original funny or colorful or whatever is the juxtaposition of _think that/another think_, right? Well, in these examples _think_ isn't used at all. Even if you used _think_ in the second phrase, the joke (such as it is) is gone. Can you imagine anyone saying, "If you believe that, you have another think coming"? I can't.


----------



## lucas-sp

Biffo said:


> That makes excellent sense except that, if that is the case surely we should find lots of instances of "If you think that you've got a different thing coming"
> 
> Google ngram finds not one single instance.


Maybe that's just because you don't know how to use the phrase like a thing-ist! Here are some "things" without "another":





> _well if that's her idea of fun she has something else coming to her._





> If he thinks these kids are easy to take care of he has something else coming to him.


OK, those are more vernacular examples. Here's another one that's maybe a bit less controversial (possibly):





> One thing is for sure: People ordering this "smoothie" expecting a healthy afternoon snack have something else coming to them.


We don't say "a different thing coming," but we do say "something else coming." Or sometimes we say something different (a very, very vernacular example):





> So this FUCKTARD thinks he can bully me into this?? Hahaha! My dude _has something different coming to_ him!


I think these examples demonstrate that the "thingists" have their own logic.


----------



## Chasint

> One thing is for sure: People ordering this "smoothie" expecting a healthy afternoon snack have something else coming to them.


That one actually makes sense but I don't believe it has much to do with this thread.

If I am expecting X to be delivered to me and I receive Y then there is no argument about the language, e.g.

_I ordered an omelette but I got something else (a sandwich)._  or  _I ordered a healthy meal but I got something else (an unhealthy one)._

I don't think even the most hardened thinkist would argue with that one.


----------



## lucas-sp

Except... All of us "thing"-ists hear _that_ as a play on words, a clever use of the set phrase "another thing coming."


----------



## Loob

I think lucas raised a very interesting question way back in post something-or-other: "how many think-ists are under 30?"

True confessions: this think-ist _isn't_ under 30 - though in my head I will be 26 forever...


(I wonder: will the mods close this thread when the post-count reaches 666?)


----------



## JamesM

JustKate said:


> I agree that they "fall into the same category," but my point is that the fact that non-think constructions are relatively easy to find demonstrates that the expression has, for some, moved quite a distance away from the original joke. What makes the original funny or colorful or whatever is the juxtaposition of _think that/another think_, right? Well, in these examples _think_ isn't used at all. Even if you used _think_ in the second phrase, the joke (such as it is) is gone. Can you imagine anyone saying, "If you believe that, you have another think coming"? I can't.



Oh, absolutely!  I don't have to imagine it, I have heard it personally and I can find examples online:

http://www.cenews.com/print-magazinearticle-risky_business__test_your_liab-4698.html
To some extent, that is a good reason to hone your technical skills. However, *if you believe*
that flawless engineering will save the day, you have* another think coming*. Speak with civil engineers who have
had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend litigation.

http://www.bigskyfans.com/hornets/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1673&start=40
Good players will make their presence felt regardless. And *if you believe *that we'll use two LBers on every single play, *you've got another think coming*.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,464385,00.html
With Halford's return, the band and Owens ''have parted amicably by mutual agreement,'' the Priest publicist says, adding that Owens' former bandmates ''expect big things for him in the future.'' *If you believe that, you've got another think coming.*

It is such a common set phrase, in my experience, that the first "think" is not necessary.  It means, to me, "you'd better re-think your opinion/position/assumption."  It still fits here with that meaning.

(I prefer the use with the parallel construction but I don't think it's required at all, only a reference to an assumption or position or opinion.)


----------



## JamesM

Loob said:


> I think lucas raised a very interesting question way back in post something-or-other: "how many think-ists are under 30?"
> 
> True confessions: this think-ist _isn't_ under 30 - though in my head I will be 26 forever...
> 
> 
> (I wonder: will the mods close this thread when the post-count reaches 666?)



Well, I'm approaching 30x2 rapidly.    I don't know how you would be able to determine age.  I looked on the Seventeen Magazine's advice blog and found this response from a 15-year-old when asked for favorite expressions:

http://answerology.seventeen.com/index.aspx/question/1705410_Fav-quotes-and-sayings-Hit-me-upp.html 
some of my favs... 
*If you think I will, then you've got another think coming

I don't think it's age-dependent.  I think it's more likely that it's passed from one generation to another in one form or the other.


----------



## JustKate

Well, James, then I don't want to hear another *word* about how the think/thing version is just so boring and bland compared to think/think.  Your examples - nice googling, by the way - negate whatever cleverness the original had. I'm not saying you've said that think/thing is bland and so forth, because it's a long thread and I can no longer remember who said what. But some people have.


----------



## JamesM

As I use it I mean "you had better re-think that" combined with an undertone of "you're in for an unpleasant surprise/shock if you don't (because you are deluding yourself)".   To me the cleverness is embedded in "another think".  The first "think" is more... euphonious... but it retains its meaning even without the first "think", in my opinion and usage.

Just to be clear, I wouldn't use it to refer to receiving something, as in "If you ordered what you thought was an LCD TV, I'm sorry to say you've got another thing coming."  You get an L*E*D TV, for example, instead of an LCD TV.   I wouldn't use "another think" there.  That's where an earlier point in the thread got me wondering if there is a separate use of "another thing coming."  However, if the first part of the sentence referred to an assumption or expectation I _would_ use it: "If you bought the Smurfland TV with the expectation that you would be receiving a high-quality piece of equipment, you've got another think coming."


----------



## The Prof

JamesM said:


> As I use it I mean "you had better re-think that" combined with an undertone of "you're in for an unpleasant surprise/shock if you don't (because you are deluding yourself)".   To me the cleverness is embedded in "another think".  The first "think" is more... euphonious... but it retains its meaning even without the first "think", in my opinion and usage.
> 
> Just to be clear, I wouldn't use it to refer to receiving something, as in "If you ordered what you thought was an LCD TV, I'm sorry to say you've got another thing coming."  You get an L*E*D TV, for example, instead of an LCD TV.   I wouldn't use "another think" there.  That's where an earlier point in the thread got me wondering if there is a separate use of "another thing coming."  However, if the first part of the sentence referred to an assumption or expectation I _would_ use it: "If you bought the Smurfland TV with the expectation that you would be receiving a high-quality piece of equipment, you've got another think coming."



Exactly how I use it. 

But now I've just discovered that my younger son is a 'thing-ist' - when I asked him if he ever used the expression "if you think ..., you've got another think coming", his instant reaction was "Don't you mean 'thing'?"   My conclusion is that today's young haven't paid as much attention to their parents' speech as my generation did - I blame television!


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

The Prof said:


> Exactly how I use it.
> 
> But now I've just discovered that my younger son is a 'thing-ist' - when I asked him if he ever used the expression "if you think ..., you've got another think coming", his instant reaction was "Don't you mean 'thing'?"   My conclusion is that today's young haven't paid as much attention to their parents' speech as my generation did - I blame television!



I really don't think so, with all due respect to the professorial. I think your son was paying attention to what mattered at the time - the issuing of some or other form of ultimatum.
The felicity conditions for the appropriate issuing of either version are after all fairly narrow.

Moreover, I still think it highly likely that a child hearing the 'think' version would parse it as a 'thing' version relative to an awareness of other turns of phrase which also contain 'another thing', especially because those other turns of phrase do not require for there  to be a specified initial thing to which 'another thing' provides an alternative.
To whit: 'And another thing ...' and '...but that's another thing entirely'.


----------



## Einstein

The Prof said:


> My conclusion is that today's young haven't paid as much attention to their parents' speech as my generation did - I blame television!


But have you really used the expression enough times in your life for your son to learn it? I don't think my father ever said it and I could probably count on two hands the number of times I've said it myself.
Still, I must consult my nephew (37) some time to see what he thingks about it.


----------



## wandle

Beryl from Northallerton said:


> I still think it highly likely that a child hearing the 'think' version would parse it as a 'thing' version relative to an awareness of other turns of phrase which also contain 'another thing'


This could certainly happen, but how likely is it? That is the interesting point.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

wandle said:


> This could certainly happen, but how likely is it? That is the interesting point.



I think that you and I are in agreement in suspecting that the 'thing'  version is supplanting the 'think' version. I think that we are at odds  as to the likely mechanism by which this is occurs. 
I also suspect  that our variance on that point is to be explained by our coming at it  from opposite sides the fence. You're a 'thinkist' and I'm a 'thinger'.
As  a 'thinger' I see it as really rather likely, as this reflects my own  experience. Let's just say that that's exactly how I've parsed it all  these years.
Reading the posts of other 'thingers', I'd say that holds for them too.

As  a 'thinkist' I think you're on record (are you not?) as ridiculing the  'thinger's' position as untenable due to the absence of an initial  'thing' to allow for the felicitous use of 'another'.
(Please feel free to correct me if you feel that I'm inaccurately characterising your position).
But it seems to me that you'd most likely accept '_And another thing ...' _and_ '...but that's another thing entirely'_ without creating a similar fuss.

To lend credence, I think that both of those forms are widely used (and in many different guises ... I think forms like _'that's another matter'_ fall into the same category),  and are far more likely to be encountered  before the subject phrase of  this thread (in the course of a child's language acquisition).


----------



## wandle

Beryl from Northallerton said:


> As  a 'thinkist' I think you're on record (are you not?) as ridiculing the  'thinger's' position as untenable due to the absence of an initial  'thing' to allow for the felicitous use of 'another'.
> (Please feel free to correct me if you feel that I'm inaccurately characterising your position).


Where do you think I said such a thing? I try to avoid ridicule.


----------



## cyberpedant

During the past two days I've heard "think" in this phrase both on "Downton Abbey"—a British TV series—and NCIS—an American police drama.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

wandle said:


> Where do you think I said such a thing? I try to avoid ridicule.


You may have come to the wrong place.  I probably had this sort of thing in mind #449.


----------



## Chasint

Beryl from Northallerton said:


> ...
> But it seems to me that you'd most likely accept '_And another thing ...' _and_ '...but that's another thing entirely'_ without creating a similar fuss.
> 
> To lend credence, I think that both of those forms are widely used (and in many different guises ... I think forms like _'that's another matter'_ fall into the same category),  and are far more likely to be encountered  before the subject phrase of  this thread (in the course of a child's language acquisition).


The problem here is that you are not giving context - a cardinal sin!  I believe that if you did so by providing complete sentences, we could easily show that these are not parallel cases.


----------



## chipulukusu

I am a living proof ot the power of shallow reading...

When I first read the object of this post it was "A mispell by a fresh learner, obviously".

Now it is "I am a thinkist of strictest observance".

Thank you everybody for enriching my English in such a great way!
Giannicola


----------



## The Prof

Einstein said:


> *But have you really used the expression enough times in your life for your son to learn it?* I don't think my father ever said it and I could probably count on two hands the number of times I've said it myself.



I would have thought so - it is an expression that I grew up with, and I am reasonably sure that I used it on many occasions with my own children. And to me, there is a clear enough difference between the sound of the two for my son to have picked up on the same 'thin*k*' that I picked up on from my own parents. However, the latter has turned out not to be the case. Well, actually, I still have to ask my other son, but I'm afraid his response will be similar to that of his brother.

I have no desire to get involved in any arguments here about which version is correct, or even which is most likely to have been the original ( although I have doubts about the theory that they developed independently). However, several _thinkists_ have discovered that their offspring don't share their version. I wonder, have any of you _thingists _discovered a similar thing amongst your children? I only ask this because at the moment, all the signs seem to suggest that the movement is one-way, from _think_ to _thing_.


----------



## JustKate

I don't have any children so I can't speak to that. Just this weekend, though, I asked my husband - without prompting him one way or another - about this. Keep in mind that we grew up 3,000 miles apart with parents who also grew up thousands of miles apart. He unhesitatingly said "thing," and - like so many of us - was surprised to find out that there was any difference of opinion on this at all. I asked a couple of other people, too, again without prompting, and all were thingists. So in my little corner of the world, there is some indication that _thing_ has already won.

Me, I think there's plenty of room in the world for both thingists and thinkists.


----------



## PaulQ

The Prof said:


> However, several _thinkists_ have discovered that their offspring don't share their version. I wonder, have any of you _thingists _discovered a similar thing amongst your children? I only ask this because at the moment, all the signs seem to suggest that the movement is one-way, from _think_ to _thing_.


I mentioned that my elder son is a heretic thingist. However, when he was about 7 years old, he had a foreign body removed from his ear. He later confessed that it had been there for some time (and that he had poked it in) - obviously, his education failed as he misheard the correct "think".


----------



## wandle

Beryl from Northallerton said:


> I think that you and I are in agreement in suspecting that the 'thing'  version is supplanting the 'think' version.
> (Please feel free to correct me if you feel that I'm inaccurately characterising your position).


I have not said that either. *PaulQ* has quoted my views correctly  at post 397.


----------



## Hau Ruck

cyberpedant said:


> During the past two days I've heard "think" in this phrase both on "Downton Abbey"—a British TV series—and NCIS—an American police drama.



I'd be curious to see a copy of that script. I've never once heard an American television show (with American script writers and an all American cast) say such a horrible thing. (haha  ).  Are you 100% sure you didn't "hear" think?  I'm not doubting you or lashing out at you (please understand that), I just find it very odd that NCIS would say that.


----------



## timpeac

I did a quick google to see if I could find the scipt for NCIS. I couldn't, but what I did notice is that this very question has been discussed many times in many places on the internet - albeit not in quite so much length as here  - but skim-reading the threads I think that the points in all those other threads are very similar indeed to those made here (people on both side of the divide initially surprised that the other version exists, a suspicion that the "think" version might have been first, a suspicion that things are moving towards the "thing" version, people on either side actually meaning something a bit different from the other group by their usage, and that in turn leading to them seeing the "logic" of their particular version as more relevant, families with both thinkers and thingists coexisting side by side etc etc).

It's clear that both forms have been around for a long time in any case - this entry on historical sightings is interesting http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004972.html .


----------



## Hau Ruck

Just thought I'd add a little observation I made last night with a tv show. The show was _Pawn Stars _(an American television show on the History Channel).
It's an unscripted, "reality" television show.  One of the guys on the show said, "If he thinks I'm taking the blame for this, then he's got another _thing_ coming."

I never would have paid attention to it until I got involved with this thread. I thought it was rather noteworthy that he used _think_ and _thing_ in the same sentence. 
He just furthered my belief that many Americans (and some other English speakers around the world) don't necessarily believe that if someone _thinks_ something then they have another _think_ coming.


----------



## cyberpedant

I'm afraid I can't document the NCIS quote, but here's another one from  Downton Abbey, copied and pasted from the subtitles (.srt) file of  season 2, episode 3 (Scene takes place among the "downstairs" folk.):

595
00:38:36,692 --> 00:38:38,777
- I did, yeah, but...
- Then fetch it.

596
00:38:38,902 --> 00:38:40,445
Because if you think I'm gonna stand by

597
00:38:40,571 --> 00:38:42,656
and watch that boy's dreams
stamped in the dust,

598
00:38:42,739 --> 00:38:44,616
you've got another think coming.

Like Filsmith, I've become hypersensitized to this phrase and have yet to hear "thing."


----------



## Hau Ruck

I wish there was an easy way we could search a collective of American and UK scripts/movie/television shows. As sad as it is, popular television/film often reflects a good majority of its audience's vernacular.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

Filsmith said:


> He just furthered my belief that many Americans (and some other English speakers around the world) don't necessarily believe that if someone _thinks_ something then they have another _think_ coming.



Nor should they. 'Thing' subsumes 'think' as paper wraps stone. Who's to say that the 'nother thing that they're due won't come in the form of a think?


----------



## Chasint

Beryl from Northallerton said:


> Nor should they. 'Thing' subsumes 'think' as paper wraps stone. Who's to say that the 'nother thing that they're due won't come in the form of a think?


Maybe we should modify all idioms with 'thing' on the basis that  it subsumes them.

A thing in time saves nine.
A thing in need is a thing indeed.
A rolling thing gathers no moss.
The pen is mightier than the other thing.

Is that the idea?


----------



## Hau Ruck

> Maybe we should modify all idioms with 'thing' on the basis that  it subsumes them.
> 
> A thing in time saves nine.
> A thing in need is a thing indeed.
> A rolling thing gathers no moss.
> The pen is mightier than the other thing.
> 
> Is that the idea?



I love how so many Brits assume that "thing" has to be specific; it does not. 

It's like saying "they" in "That's what they all say."  I don't have to specifically name for you who "they" are.  The ambiguous reference is just understood by native speakers. The same goes for "thing" (at least to those that use it).  If you don't understand it, don't use it, and definitely do not mock it. It just looks bad on your part.


----------



## Loob

Filsmith said:


> I love how so many Brits assume that "thing" has to be specific; it does not.


Ummm ... there doesn't seem to be a BrE/AmE divide in this thread.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

Biffo said:


> Maybe we should modify all idioms with 'thing' on the basis that  it subsumes them.
> 
> A thing in time saves nine.
> A thing in need is a thing indeed.
> A rolling thing gathers no moss.
> The pen is mightier than the other thing.
> 
> Is that the idea?



Close. The thing is mightier than the other think.


----------



## Hau Ruck

Loob said:


> Ummm ... there doesn't seem to be a BrE/AmE divide in this thread.



The only posters I see thinking that "thing" has to specifically refer to "something" seem to be Brits.  Have you seen an American suggest this in the pages and pages of this thread? I've not.


----------



## Chasint

Filsmith said:


> The same goes for "thing" (at least to those that use it).  If you don't understand it, don't use it, and definitely do not mock it. It just looks bad on your part.


Having read most of the posts on this thread I certainly have come to understand that many people use 'thing' and that they have reasons. I was not arguing with that. I was pointing out the lack of force in the statement_'Thing' subsumes 'think' as paper wraps stone.' _#548 Given that 'thing' is probably the most general word in the language, saying what it subsumes has no bearing on the argument in my opinion.


----------



## Chasint

Beryl from Northallerton said:


> Close. The thing is mightier than the other think.


No-one has claimed that 'think' subsumes anything any more than 'sword' does.  I don't see what the subsumption argument is supposed to prove that's all.


----------



## Chasint

Filsmith said:


> The only posters I see thinking that "thing" has to specifically refer to "something" seem to be Brits.  Have you seen an American suggest this in the pages and pages of this thread? I've not.


The dozen or so contributors to this thread don't exactly make a representative sample. Here (once again) is a graph showing that US writers use 'think' more than 'thing'

http://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...00&year_end=2000&corpus=17&smoothing=3&share=


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

Filsmith said:


> The only posters I see thinking that "thing" has to specifically refer to "something" seem to be Brits.  Have you seen an American suggest this in the pages and pages of this thread? I've not.


There's a certainly a divide Filsmith, but I don't think it's transatlantic. Try transgalactic.


----------



## Loob

Filsmith said:


> The only posters I see thinking that "thing" has to specifically refer to "something" seem to be Brits.  Have you seen an American suggest this in the pages and pages of this thread? I've not.


I'm sorry, Filsmith. I thought you were suggesting that "thing" was AmE and "think" was BrE, whereas there are clearly think-ists and thing-ists on both sides of the Atlantic.

Apologies for misunderstanding you.


----------



## Hau Ruck

Loob said:


> I'm sorry, Filsmith. I thought you were suggesting that "thing" was AmE and "think" was BrE, whereas there are clearly think-ists and thing-ists on both sides of the Atlantic.
> 
> Apologies for misunderstanding you.



Understandable, and no worries.


----------



## JamesM

Filsmith said:


> The only posters I see thinking that "thing" has to specifically refer to "something" seem to be Brits.  Have you seen an American suggest this in the pages and pages of this thread? I've not.



I'm American and I've said that "thing" in my usage would be reserved for actual things.  

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=87385&page=11&p=12775393#post12775393


----------



## Hau Ruck

JamesM said:


> I'm American and I've said that "thing" in my usage would be reserved for actual things.




Let me ask you this, have you ever said "I've got something for you" with the "something" not actually being anything identifiable? 
I certainly have, and I've certainly heard many others say it with the "thing" not being "anything" particular. 
This is just one example where a "thing" is nothing specifically referenced. 
The point is, it's a saying, it's not meant to be taken so literally.  I suspect you already know that. As do many here.


----------



## panjandrum

The thinkists want to know what the "another thing" is.
They would also like to know why "another" is used - asking what the first "thing" is.

I have never heard anyone say "I have something for you," when "something" is nothing in particular.

My family thingists were very clear about the general characteristics of the "another thing" that is coming, though not its precise nature.  But they were not able to explain the use of "another".
The conversation seeking to arrive at mutual understanding was even more pointless than this thread, but was a great deal shorter


----------



## Chasint

Perhaps it is time to return to the questions. There were two:

*1. Is the expression "you've got another think coming"? or "another thing coming"? *#1

*2. As a non-native speaker of English, am I better off with "think" or "thing"? * #347


The answer to 1 has been established. There are two distinct versions and each is widely used. Most English speaking countries have occurrences of each.


    Question 2 has been answered in a number of ways.

*Thingist*
(a) Use 'thing' because 'I and people I know' say it.
(b) Don't learn either. It is not a suitable expression for non-native speakers.  (I would have to search for this. It was an argument by a thingist however)
(c) 'thing' is more logical
(d) 'thing' can be used in more general contexts and so is of wider application
(e) 'thing' is gaining in popularity.

*Thinkist*
(a) Use 'think' because 'I and people I know' say it.  (as above for thingists)
(b)More people use 'think' than use 'thing'.  (as shown by Ngram for example)
(c) Dictionaries give 'think' as the standard version.
(d) 'think' is more logical
(e) Although the 'thing' version appears to be catching up, it will be a long time before it overtakes 'think' so learn the current numerical winner for current times.

*Independent*
There are none. It seems that people naturally fall on one side of the fence or the other. I don't think anyone has suggested using both versions.


----------



## JamesM

Filsmith said:


> Let me ask you this, have you ever said "I've got something for you" with the "something" not actually being anything identifiable?
> I certainly have, and I've certainly heard many others say it with the "thing" not being "anything" particular.



Sorry, no, it doesn't really ring a bell.  Can you give a scenario and a short dialogue?  Even if I had an idea or a proposal and said "I've got something for you" it would be referring to something specific (my idea or proposal).


----------



## timpeac

Filsmith said:


> It's like saying "they" in "That's what they all say."  I don't have to specifically name for you who "they" are.  The ambiguous reference is just understood by native speakers.


I'm sorry, but that's a terrible example. Using "they" in arguments (arguments in the sense of discussions of point) is an almost hackneyed example of bad and woolly reasoning. If you have to resort to "they" rather than specify who you're talking about then it's a red flag that the argument is faulty... Same for "thing".

That's the thing that I've heard them say, anyway.


----------



## mplsray

Biffo said:


> Perhaps it is time to return to the questions. There were two:
> 
> *1. Is the expression "you've got another think coming"? or "another thing coming"? *#1
> 
> *2. As a non-native speaker of English, am I better off with "think" or "thing"? * #347
> 
> 
> The answer to 1 has been established. There are two distinct versions and each is widely used. Most English speaking countries have occurrences of each.
> 
> 
> Question 2 has been answered in a number of ways.
> 
> *Thingist*
> (a) Use 'thing' because 'I and people I know' say it.
> (b) Don't learn either. It is not a suitable expression for non-native speakers.  (I would have to search for this. It was an argument by a thingist however)
> (c) 'thing' is more logical
> (d) 'thing' can be used in more general contexts and so is of wider application
> (e) 'thing' is gaining in popularity.
> 
> *Thinkist*
> (a) Use 'think' because 'I and people I know' say it.  (as above for thingists)
> (b)More people use 'think' than use 'thing'.  (as shown by Ngram for example)
> (c) Dictionaries give 'think' as the standard version.
> (d) 'think' is more logical
> (e) Although the 'thing' version appears to be catching up, it will be a long time before it overtakes 'think' so learn the current numerical winner for current times.
> 
> *Independent*
> There are none. It seems that people naturally fall on one side of the fence or the other. I don't think anyone has suggested using both versions.



I and at least one other poster have identified both versions as standard. If someone learning English as a foreign language decides to use the expression--I pointed out that I myself don't care to use it--he might as well flip a coin to decide which version to use.


----------



## PaulQ

Given the 566 posts so far, a student of English might wish to avoid the saying altogether and thus prevent the conversation being derailed.  But if they do use it, they should use think.


----------



## e2efour

mplsray said:


> I and at least one other poster have identified both versions as standard. If someone learning English as a foreign language decides to use the expression--I pointed out that I myself don't care to use it--he might as well flip a coin to decide which version to use.


This just about sums up this (now pointless) thread for me.
I have found it valuable since I was astonished to learn of the existence of the _think _variant, but since I am a tolerant person )) I will accept the existence of two parallel versions, even though I will never use one of them.


----------



## Chasint

I just want to check something with the "thing" supporters. This particular point hasn't been explicitly covered as far as I know

Imagine the following conversation:

_Salesman:  So can I definitely put you down for double-glazing on the front windows of your house?
Customer: I'm not sure.
Salesperson: I'm afraid I can only offer you this low, low price if you make a decision now.
Customer: I'm sorry. *I need to have a good long think about it*.
_

I am trying to distinguish between "strong thingism" and "weak thingism" (No value judgements implied).

As I define it, a *strong thingist* would adhere to the phrase_ "...another thing coming..."_ and would furthermore deny the possibility of _"a think"_ being a noun as in _"having a think"_.

On the other hand, a *weak thingist *would say _"...another thing coming..."_ but would be happy to say _"having a think"_ in other contexts.

So thingists, Which are you?

Thanks   (Thangs)

______________________________________________________________________
Note
I'm a thinkist so I cannot answer this question for myself.


----------



## PaulQ

> I am trying to distinguish between "strong thingism" and "weak thingism" (No value judgements implied).


Are you trying to promote the connection between

Having second thoughts
and 
Having another think coming - i.e. a second thought?

If so, I agree.

(PQ devout thinkist)


----------



## JustKate

I am a strong thingist, and I can say with some certainty that I am very unlikely to say "I'll have a good long think about it." It's not that _think_ is never a noun for me, but for me, it just isn't very, you know, _nouny_. I'd just say "I need to think about it." I think this means that I fit your theory.


----------



## fenixpollo

Biffo said:


> I am trying to distinguish between "strong thingism" and "weak thingism" (No value judgements implied).
> 
> As I define it, a *strong thingist* would adhere to the phrase_ "...another thing coming..."_ and would furthermore deny the possibility of _"a think"_ being a noun as in _"having a think"_.
> 
> On the other hand, a *weak thingist *would say _"...another thing coming..."_ but would be happy to say _"having a think"_ in other contexts.


Did you come up with this theory about strong/weak thingist by reading the thread? It doesn't really make sense to me, because the reason that "you've got another think coming" is strange to my ears is that "think" is not a noun. My assumption would be that all thingists would hold the same, which would mean that there's no such thing as a "strong thingist" or a "weak thingist" -- we're all just thingists.


----------



## wandle

fenixpollo said:


> "think" is not a noun.


But it is a noun, in colloquial use, and recognised as such by authoritative dictionaries including the Oxford English Dictionary.


----------



## lucas-sp

Oh gosh, are we back here again?

I'm the weakest of the "thing"-ists, because I have no problem with the two forms being interchangeable. That is, I see them both as equally valid, equally logical (if, indeed, either one is "logical"), identical in meaning/use, and contemporary with each other in terms of history and development.

I am completely familiar with "a think." My father - who is a thing-ist too, I've asked - used "a think" often when I was growing up. (I don't use "a think" very often, unless I'm trying to be old-fashioned and folksy. But then again, I've already raised the specter of a generational gap in "think"-ing in general.) In fact, and as I stated somewhere back among the last 600 posts, _the noun use of "a think" was one reason why "to have another think coming" sounded strange to me._ 

My thinking at the time was: We always say "I'm going to have a nice long think about" something - so "a think" is always something that you do willingly and purposefully. How, then, can a think "come" to you? "A think" is an active act that you consciously choose, so you can't have "a think" forced or imposed on you by circumstances.

Does it make you a "weak think-ist" to admit that the word "thing" is valid and can be used as a noun in other circumstances?


----------



## JustKate

In case I didn't make it clear, I don't mind other people using _think_ - it's a perfectly valid version of the idiom. It's just not the one I use.


----------



## cyberpedant

At risk of restating earlier posts—572 priors are too many to look through without a "search this thread" option—here's what my digital OED has to say:

b.2.b to have another think coming: to be greatly mistaken. 

   1937 Amer. Speech XII. 317/1 Several different statements used for the same idea—that of some one's making a mistake.‥[e.g.] you have another think coming.    1942 T. Bailey Pink Camellia xxvii. 199 If you think you can get me out of Gaywood, you have another think coming.    1979 Jrnl. R. Soc. Arts CXXVII. 221/2 Any design consultant who thinks he is going to get British Leyland right by himself on his own has got another think coming.

think is indeed accepted as a noun.

think, n. dial. or colloq.

[f. think v.2] 

1. a.1.a An act of (continued) thinking; a meditation.


----------



## wandle

lucas-sp said:


> My thinking at the time was: We always say "I'm going to have a nice long think about" something - so "a think" is always something that you do willingly and purposefully. How, then, can a think "come" to you? "A think" is an active act that you consciously choose, so you can't have "a think" forced or imposed on you by circumstances.


'You've got another think coming' does not force or impose a think on anyone. It is a prediction, a forecast.
Of course, the individual has to engage in that act of re-thinking willingly.
The meaning of the prediction is: I predict circumstances will develop in which you will be thinking again.
This no more forces the person to think than saying 'I predict you will be taking an umbrella' forces the person to take it.


----------



## cyberpedant

lucas-sp said:


> My thinking at the time was: We always say "I'm going to have a nice long think about" something - so "a think" is always something that you do willingly and purposefully. How, then, can a think "come" to you? "A think" is an active act that you consciously choose, so you can't have "a think" forced or imposed on you by circumstances.



Here's how I might have used the phrase in my years as a teacher: "Young man, if you think you can hand in a paper like this you've got another think coming." By this I mean that under the given circumstances the person in question is obliged to rethink his position and conform to the demands of the "circumstances"—those of his hard-nosed teacher.


----------



## lucas-sp

wandle said:


> 'You've got another think coming' does not force or impose a think on anyone. It is a prediction, a forecast.
> Of course, the individual has to engage in that act of re-thinking willingly.
> The meaning of the prediction is: I predict circumstances will develop in which you will be thinking again.


Just more evidence of how "logic" doesn't enter into this. You hear "you've got another think coming" in this way, I hear it in a different way, and our parsings of the _(putative) __internal logic of the phrase_ do nothing to convince anyone.

That's because nobody uses the phrase in terms of its _internal_ logic. The whole unit is "[to have] another thing/k coming." It can be used in sentences with or without "think," sentences in which any "thinking" is merely implicit, and its parts can be redistributed and it will still work the same (we saw "think" being replaced by "something else," for instance). Most importantly, a "k"-sound can be swapped with a "g"-sound, or vice-versa, and the entire phrase works exactly the same.

If you say to me, or if I say to you, "You act like you've got this vice-presidential nomination all sewn up, but you've got another thing/k coming," then both of us would understand the sentence _in __exactly the same way_. We would both understand that sentence as darkly foreboding - you're telling me that something will happen that conflicts with my expectations, and I won't like it. A proverbial bomb will, sooner or later, go off in my face.

The thing/k contrast is a distinction without a difference. To me, it's the same as spelling variants like "color"/"colour" - maybe your choice tells me a little bit about _you_ and where you're from, but you and I will use and understand the semantic unit (the word "colo/our") in exactly the same way.


----------



## wandle

Post 579 confirms that no one can be forced to think any particular thing.
Post 578 gives a typical example of the expression in use.
The young man is not strictly speaking forced to think differently, even though that is what his teacher has predicted.
What is certain is that he is forced either to alter his behaviour (rewrite the paper properly) or to accept unpleasant consequences.


----------



## JulianStuart

JustKate said:


> It's not that _think_ is never a noun for me, but for me, *it just isn't very, you know, nouny.*


I'm a thinkist because that was the first version I heard, the only one that makes sense to me and the most common early one in print.  However, this has to be one of the most compelling and humorous reasons for being a thingist I've heard in the whole thread.  A wonderful piece of adjectivization that echoes the nounification issue in the whole thread.


----------



## wandle

lucas-sp said:


> The thing/k contrast is a distinction without a difference.


That I cannot accept. It is the destruction of a piece of language. 


> To me, it's the same as spelling variants like "color"/"colour" - maybe your choice tells me a little bit about _you_ and where you're from, but you and I will use and understand the semantic unit (the word "colo/our") in exactly the same way.


No. It is not a spelling variant. It is a case of two different words, with different pronunciations and different meanings.


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> ....Does it make you a "weak think-ist" to admit that the word "thing" is valid and can be used as a noun in other circumstances?


I imagine there are very few people who would deny that "thing" is a valid noun. If you could find some of them then this idea would indeed be valid.

However there are people (whom I label strong thingists) who simply don't accept that "think" is a noun at all. We have an example right there in post #572 where fenixpollo says unequivocally -


> the reason that "you've got another think coming" is strange to my ears is that "think" is not a noun



By my definition then, fenixpollo is a strong thingist whilst lucas-sp ( #579 ) is a self-declared weak thingist.

So the distinction does exist.


----------



## lucas-sp

I just don't think it's relevant whether or not "think" is a noun. (Or whether or not "thing" is a noun.)

For instance, nobody is going to say that "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" is a word, or that "outgrabe" is a word, but that doesn't keep them from being used - correctly - in certain contexts and situations. If I said "and the mime raths outgrabe," you would be right to correct me to "mome" (even though "mime" is a word).

It wouldn't make a "think"-ist argument any stronger to say that "thing" wasn't a word, because it's not relevant to the argument at hand. (It's particularly irrelevant because, well, both "think" and "thing" _are_​ words.)


----------



## wandle

lucas-sp said:


> I just don't think it's relevant whether or not "think" is a noun.


It is relevant because some people say (a) that it is not a noun and (b) that _therefore_ 'thing' is the correct word.


----------



## lucas-sp

wandle said:


> It is relevant because some people say (a) that it is not a noun and (b) that _therefore_ 'thing' is the correct word.


But people who say (a) are clearly wrong. Even a "thing"-ist should accept the evidence provided by the wide and multifaceted world in which we live. (Even a "think"-ist should, too.)

And even if people who say (a) are correct, then (b) does not logically follow from (a).

Hence the irrelevance.


----------



## wandle

Nevertheless, it is relevant to those people who think that (b) does follow from (a).
Consequently, it is relevant to those who wish to see agreement as far as possible instead of disagreement.


----------



## mplsray

Biffo said:


> I just want to check something with the "thing" supporters. This particular point hasn't been explicitly covered as far as I know
> 
> Imagine the following conversation:
> 
> _Salesman:  So can I definitely put you down for double-glazing on the front windows of your house?
> Customer: I'm not sure.
> Salesperson: I'm afraid I can only offer you this low, low price if you make a decision now.
> Customer: I'm sorry. *I need to have a good long think about it*.
> _
> 
> I am trying to distinguish between "strong thingism" and "weak thingism" (No value judgements implied).
> 
> As I define it, a *strong thingist* would adhere to the phrase_ "...another thing coming..."_ and would furthermore deny the possibility of _"a think"_ being a noun as in _"having a think"_.
> 
> On the other hand, a *weak thingist *would say _"...another thing coming..."_ but would be happy to say _"having a think"_ in other contexts.
> 
> So thingists, Which are you?



There is at least one more group, those for whom _think_ can indeed be a noun, but a noun utterly irrelevant to the expression "have another thing coming." That's the group I belonged to as a boy, before I learned of the existence of the "have another think coming" variant.


----------



## Chasint

mplsray said:


> There is at least one more group, those for whom _think_ can indeed be a noun, but a noun utterly irrelevant to the expression "have another thing coming." That's the group I belonged to as a boy, before I learned of the existence of the "have another think coming" variant.


But that is what I mean by a weak thingist - isn't it?. How is your experience different? Do you mean that you stopped thinking of 'think' as a noun as you grew older?


----------



## lucas-sp

wandle said:


> It is a case of two different words, with different pronunciations and different meanings.


I think you mean this about "another think/g coming."

_Yes, _"think" and "thing" are two different words, with different pronunciations, different meanings, and different uses. (We have to throw "use" in here too.)

_But I disagree here_: in today's English "another think coming" and "another thing coming" _are in fact two variants of the *same* semantic unit_. Their spellings and pronunciations are practically indistinguishable from each other. They have _identical_ meanings and are used _identically_.

The confusion comes when we focus too strongly on the component parts. The meaning of an idiom is not reducible to the sum of the meanings of its component parts; everyone acknowledges this in the case of "the bee's knees," for instance. The same is true here. The _whole phrase_ is the unit, not the individual words. So the variant spelling k/g is, for all practical purposes, equivalent to the variant spelling o/ou in a word like "colo/our."


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> I think you mean this about "another think/g coming."
> 
> _Yes, _"think" and "thing" are two different words, with different pronunciations, different meanings, and different uses. (We have to throw "use" in here too.)
> 
> _But I disagree here_: in today's English "another think coming" and "another thing coming" _are in fact two variants of the *same* semantic unit_. Their spellings and pronunciations are practically indistinguishable from each other. They have _identical_ meanings and are used _identically_.
> 
> The confusion comes when we focus too strongly on the component parts. The meaning of an idiom is not reducible to the sum of the meanings of its component parts; everyone acknowledges this in the case of "the bee's knees," for instance. The same is true here. The _whole phrase_ is the unit, not the individual words. So the variant spelling k/g is, for all practical purposes, equivalent to the variant spelling o/ou in a word like "colo/our."


I don't believe that this point of view is borne out by what others have said. A large proportion of thingists claim that the unknown 'thing' is somehow menacing/threatening and therefore lends the force of dire consequences to the saying.

Thinkists simply make a prediction that one will have to rethink one's point of view. It need not be a threat - it can simply be an assertion that a new realisation will dawn when the facts become clear.

The words are different and the meaning for the listener is different. The saying is sinister for the thingist but clinical for the thinkist.


----------



## PaulQ

I proposed earlier that "to have another think coming" was a variant on "to have second thoughts."


"Second thoughts" dates back to at least the 16th century, i.e. well before "to have another think coming": OED





> second thoughts n. ideas occurring subsequently; later and maturer consideration (usu. in phr. on or upon second thoughts) ; similarly first thoughts.
> 
> 
> _1581   G. Pettie tr. S. Guazzo Ciuile Conuersat. i. f. 23v,   I finde verified the Prouerbe, Thar the second thoughtes are euer the best._



"If you think I'm giving you any money, you...

(i) have another think coming" 
(ii) should have second thoughts"

I don't think I need to spell out the connection between *another think* and *second thoughts*...


----------



## lucas-sp

Hm. I don't buy it.

I can say: I was going to lend you money, but now I'm having second thoughts.
But I can't say: I was going to lend you money, but then another think/g came / but now another think/g is coming.

However, I can say: If you think I'm going to lend you money, then you've got another thing/k coming!

(There's no necessary _threat _implicit in this statement - I'm not going to beat you for asking me for money. But it is strongly implied here that you won't get what you want. I suppose that's a "threat," of a sort, but it's a foreboding of disappointment, not a threat of retaliation.)

Perhaps an equivalent to "another think" could be "[you should] _think again_." But again, the usage of "think again" doesn't exactly correspond to "another think/g coming" either.


----------



## Hau Ruck

Let me ask this: 

A) Do all the "think-ists" agree on the _exact_ meaning/implication of "think"?
B) Do all the "thing-ists" agree on the _exact _meaning/implication of "thing"?

To me, it seems that many "think-ists" are not in complete agreement about what "think" unequivocally means. Through these pages of posts, I see quite a few different reports of what it means to each person.  Some are similar, some not. They all have a _basic_ gist that is on par, but not always the same exact intention with the word "think".

On the other hand, it seems that all the "thing-ists" seem to readily agree as to what "thing" refers to.


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> ...
> However, I can say: If you think I'm going to lend you money, then you've got another *thing* coming!
> 
> (There's no necessary _threat _implicit in this statement - I'm not going to beat you for asking me for money. But it is strongly implied here that you won't get what you want. I suppose that's a "threat," of a sort, but it's a foreboding of disappointment, not a threat of retaliation.)
> ...


The whole point is that, if you don't get the loan, there isn't another thing coming. Surely you should say "If you think I'm going to lend you money, then you have nothing coming."


----------



## PaulQ

think = thought

"If you think I'm giving you any money, you have another think/thought coming" - i.e. I predict the certain arrival of another think/thought [by virtue of my inflexible attitude/your previous behaviour.]




> On the other hand, it seems that all the "thing-ists" seem to readily agree as to what "thing" refers to.


Which is not surprising as "thing" is vagueness personified!


----------



## Hau Ruck

Biffo said:


> The whole point is that, if you don't get the loan, there isn't another thing coming. Surely you should say "If you think I'm going to lend you money, then you have nothing coming."



Yes, you do. That's the beauty of a "thing".

"If you think that I'm going to lend you money, then you have another thing coming."
Some_thing_ different than what you thought would happen, will actually happen.  Another _thing_ will occur than what you hoped for.





> Which is not surprising as "thing" is vagueness personified!


Its vagueness is _exactly_ why it's so pertinent.  What thing? The thing which someone expected.  _That thing._ It won't be; another _thing_ instead (some_thing _else) will occur/be said, etc.


----------



## Chasint

Filsmith said:


> Let me ask this:
> 
> A) Do all the "think-ists" agree on the _exact_ meaning/implication of "think"?
> B) Do all the "thing-ists" agree on the _exact _meaning/implication of "thing"?
> 
> To me, it seems that many "think-ists" are not in complete agreement about what "think" unequivocally means. Through these pages of posts, I see quite a few different reports of what it means to each person.  Some are similar, some not. They all have a _basic_ gist that is on par, but not always the same exact intention with the word "think".
> 
> On the other hand, it seems that all the "thing-ists" seem to readily agree as to what "thing" refers to.


It's odd but I see the exact opposite. We thinkists say that 'another think' is a re-think.  "If you think that then you have a rethink coming."

Thingists seem quite undecided about what the mysterious other thing may be.

Can you support your point of view with actual thinkist examples from the thread?


----------



## Hau Ruck

Biffo said:


> Can you support your point of view with actual thinkist examples from the thread?



Not 6 posts ago, Paul submitted his thoughts as to what "think" could mean.



PaulQ said:


> I proposed earlier that "to have another think coming" was a variant on "to have second thoughts."



He even states that he "proposed" its very meaning. If "thinkists" were in agreement, he'd not need to propose any meaning for it.

We "thing-ists" don't have any doubt as to what "thing" is.  "Think-ists" just don't like the fact that the word is vague.  "Thing" is some_thing_ else; some_thing_ other than what was expected.


----------



## PaulQ

Filsmith said:


> Its vagueness is _exactly_ why it's so pertinent.  What thing? The thing which someone expected.  _That thing._ It won't be; another _thing_ instead (some_thing _else) will occur/be said, etc.


So "*Thing*" can mean "*absence of a thing*"?


----------



## timpeac

Biffo said:


> The whole point is that, if you don't get the loan, there isn't another thing coming. Surely you should say "If you think I'm going to lend you money, then you have nothing coming."


Other than a rethink, which equals another think in my usage, which finds nothing strange - or indeed even colloquial - about "think" as a noun.


----------



## Hau Ruck

PaulQ said:


> So "*Thing*" can mean "*absence of a thing*"?



Thing can be just about any_thing.   _That's the beauty of its vagueness.

Have you never said, "WELL! Isn't THAT something!!!" 
Well, what was it? Nail it down for me.    By the same logic, that is an invalid statement and you should never say it. 
 It's the same _thing. _ 

"Thing" is some_thing_ (many times the exact opposite of what was intended/expected by one person) else.  It's generically basic and easy.

I expected this thing (a loan of money, a certain song, a handshake - whatever the context deems). That didn't happen or it won't be happening. So, instead, some_thing_ else will.


----------



## Chasint

Filsmith said:


> ...
> I expected this thing (a loan of money, a certain song, a handshake - whatever the context deems). That didn't happen or it won't be happening. So, instead, some_thing_ else will.


But that is an empty statement. As long as we remain alive there will always be _some_ other thing coming. There is no reason to make a saying about this fact of life.

Apart of course from 

Life is just one damned thing after another
.*Elbert Hubbard*
_US author (1856 - 1915)_

The above is true regardless of context - loans or otherwise.


----------



## lucas-sp

Biffo said:


> As long as we remain alive there will always be other things coming. There is no reason to make a saying about it.


You mean, a saying like "That's life!"?

But the saying is not "other things are coming." The saying is "other things are coming that are not the same as what you think you ought to expect." And that is not trivial. And that is what the saying says, with a k or a g.


----------



## Hau Ruck

Biffo said:


> But that is an empty statement. As long as we remain alive there will always be other things coming. There is no reason to say so.



No, you are straying from the point. It is a thing in regards to the other thing; not just some random thing with no rhyme or reason.

I expect you to give me a loan. The loan is the "thing" I expect.
Well, you aren't giving me one. And you are making it emphatically clear that the thing I thought would be, won't be.

Instead of saying, "You thought I would loan you money?!?! Well! I will NOT be loaning you money!" you say, "You thought I would loan you money?!?! Well! You have got another thing/think coming!"

Notice, I included your "think" because it applies to both our theories. I could just as easily say that there will always be additional thoughts to be thought; I don't need to tell you to rethink your thoughts. 

The person says "thing" to say, "Hey, guess what? I'm bringing it to your attention that some_thing_ else will be happening in lieu of that other thing."

Neither of our phrases have to be said; they are said to emphatically deliver a point to the individual who was so daft to believe such a thing (or think I guess) would occur.


----------



## PaulQ

Filsmith said:


> I expected this thing (a loan of money, a certain song, a handshake - whatever the context deems). That didn't happen or it won't be happening. So, instead, some_thing_ else will.


but this is trivial but only because a state in which *no thing* is happening can be described as "nothing is happening".

"If you think I am going to lend you money, no thing will happen" doesn't quite have the same edge.


----------



## Hau Ruck

PaulQ said:


> but this is trivial but only because a state in which *no thing* is happening can be described as "nothing is happening".
> 
> "If you think I am going to lend you money, no thing will happen" doesn't quite have the same edge.



No, you are choosing to not hear what we are saying. We are not saying "no thing"; you "think-ists" are.  You guys are stuck on "the opposite of thing is nothing".  That is not what we are saying. This thing, that thing, what thing? Something.  Not "nothing".

I expect thing A. Instead, some_thing_ else will be.  Not "nothing".  Something else.


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> You mean, a saying like "That's life!"?
> 
> But the saying is not "other things are coming." The saying is "other things are coming that are not the same as what you think you ought to expect." And that is not trivial. And that is what the saying says, with a k or a g.


Yes, exactly! 

_If you think I'm giving you a loan, you're wrong. That's life!_ 


Maybe nothing will happen (at least in the context under consideration). 

Example

_"I want to borrow some money to start a business"_

Maybe he didn't get a loan and he didn't start a business. Obviously other things will happen to him instead  but to make a point of it is a waste of breath - it's a given.


----------



## PaulQ

As an aside, and being as this thread is so long, it would be interesting to have a poll - even more interesting would be to combine the place where those voting spent the majority of their childhood and their choice of thing/k.


----------



## lucas-sp

Biffo said:


> Obviously other things will happen to him instead  but to make a point of it is a waste of breath.


And "obviously he'll change his mind about some things as he goes through his life [or at least he will, hopefully], but to make a point of it is a waste of breath"?

None of this is germane to the point at hand. We only say "he has another thing/k coming" _when it is worthwhile to make a point of it_. And those circumstances are the same, whether we spell the phrase with a g or a k.


----------



## Hau Ruck

Biffo said:


> Maybe he didn't get a loan and he didn't start a business. Obviously other things will happen to him instead  but to make a point of it is a waste of breath - it's a given.



And yet there is somehow more validity in having to tell someone to rethink what they thought?

If I do or don't get the loan, surely I don't need you to tell me to rethink my thoughts.  The same logic (of which I do not agree with one bit) can be applied to "think".  

That man will go about rethinking his plans and thoughts without anyone else's input.  Try not to get stuck on the wording so much as its intent.  None of these phrases _have_
to be said; they are idioms said to make a point.


----------



## Hau Ruck

lucas-sp said:


> And "obviously he'll change his mind about some things as he goes through his life [or at least he will, hopefully], but to make a point of it is a waste of breath"?
> 
> None of this is germane to the point at hand. We only say "he has another thing/k coming" _when it is worthwhile to make a point of it_. And those circumstances are the same, whether we spell the phrase with a g or a k.


----------



## PaulQ

Filsmith said:


> And yet there is somehow more validity in having to tell someone to rethink what they thought?


Yes, it's "having second thoughts."


----------



## JulianStuart

So how do the thingists explain the data in post #204 (ngrams showing the "thing" version was extremely rare in print for many decades while the think version was common)?  Did the think version stop being correct and thing became correct? Or thing grew in popularity to stand alongside the earlier form?  Even if the thing version was in widely spoken use, why would it not appear in print nearly as often, even to this day, as the think version?


----------



## Chasint

PaulQ said:


> As an aside, and being as this thread is so long, it would be interesting to have a poll - even more interesting would be to combine the place where those voting spent the majority of their childhood and their choice of thing/k.


This has been suggested before. The argument against was that it would not be representative of the general population. I however was brought up in Staffordshire, England. I don't remember the first time I encountered the expression - possibly it was in literature and hence immune from mis-hearing.

We can compare AE and BE usage by using ngram:

AE
http://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...00&year_end=2012&corpus=17&smoothing=3&share=

BE
http://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...00&year_end=2008&corpus=18&smoothing=3&share=


----------



## Chasint

Filsmith said:


> And yet there is somehow more validity in having to tell someone to rethink what they thought?
> 
> If I do or don't get the loan, surely I don't need you to tell me to rethink my thoughts.  The same logic (of which I do not agree with one bit) can be applied to "think".
> ...


Saying another thing is coming is completely redundant. It is too general to have a meaning.  However if you suggest a rethink, all sorts of opportunities may come to mind.

Example

_"I want a loan."
"If you think I will give you a loan you have a rethink coming."
"You're right. Now that I think about it, maybe I should work hard and save my money. Then I won't need a loan."_


----------



## Hau Ruck

JulianStuart said:


> So how do the thingists explain the data in post #204 (ngrams showing the "thing" version was extremely rare in print for many decades while the think version was common)?  Did the think version stop being correct and thing became correct? Or thing grew in popularity to stand alongside the earlier form?  Even if the thing version was in widely spoken use, why would it not appear in print nearly as often, even to this day, as the think version?



I don't think that "think" is any less valid than "thing." I believe both to be valid.

It's some of the "think-ists" that cannot believe "thing" is possible. I give full credibility to their view. Both make sense. 
Now, whether the chicken or the egg came first, I could care less. In deeming them both as valid, it's not really a concern of mine. And that is the very nature of this thread.

Think or thing?  Pick your poison. But don't tell me that "thing" is wrong.


----------



## lucas-sp

JulianStuart said:


> So how do the thingists explain the data in post #204 (ngrams showing the "thing" version was extremely rare in print for many decades while the think version was common)?  Did the think version stop being correct and thing became correct? Or thing grew in popularity to stand alongside the earlier form?  Even if the thing version was in widely spoken use, why would it not appear in print nearly as often, even to this day, as the think version?


Finally, the questions that are actually germane.

Actually, nowadays the "thing" version does appear in print with great regularity. Back in post #389, I wrote:





> To get a sense of the wider use of these phrases in interviews and reports, look at Google News searches for the phrases "another thing coming" and "another think coming," and make sure to click through to the last page to see the actual number of hits. There are 21 results for "another think coming" (a lot of the ones that come up are reading a headline that was repeated on multiple pages), and *57 results* for "another thing coming." That's a huge majority in favor of "thing"! It could just be a blip for now, but it certainly shows that there is a significant number of people using "thing" in reading and writing, in semi-formal situations.


Repeating that test now, I found *17* *instances of "think"* and *80 instances of "thing." *That's a _large_ margin.

COCA gives 20 "thinks" to 23 "things."

The New York Times uses "think" and "thing" equally.

So we shouldn't believe that "thing" doesn't appear in print as often as "think." Nowadays, the use is either split around 50/50, or even tipping in favor of "thing."


----------



## Hau Ruck

Biffo said:


> Saying another thing is coming is completely redundant. It is too general to have a meaning.  However if you suggest a rethink, all sorts of opportunities may come to mind.



Post #62:



> That does not  convince me that “you have another think coming” is correct. I always  understood the expression to be “you have another *thing* coming”, the “thing” being a surprise. “If you expect me to agree with you, you have a surprise coming”.



This is akin to "I've got SOMETHING for you, my friend!"  Do I sit there and ponder, "hmm what could be this "thing" that he's got for me?"  His intention is understood. 
If "thing" is not valid, then we really should omit it from all dictionaries.


----------



## Hau Ruck

PaulQ said:


> Yes, it's "having second thoughts."



My point, as to its validity, was that you should not then have to tell him to rethink. If I can't tell him he's got some_thing _else coming (because "of course he does") well then why do you get to tell him to rethink? They are the same thing. I tell him something else will occur, you tell him to rethink his thoughts of what will occur. 
How is "you better rethink things" more valid than "hey, something else is going to happen."

?


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> Finally, the questions that are actually germane...


This question has already been dealt with thoroughly earlier in the thread so there is no "finally".

The problem for me is that the thingists dance around as to what 'thing' actually means. Sometimes they say that it is a sinister thing. At other times they claim that it is a neutral new life event of any kind.

I am willing to accept the 'threatening thing' as having some logic. however when we home in on this, other thingists squirm away from it.

All thinkists are absolutely clear that we are referring to a specific event - that of rethinking (as opposed to committing suicide for example).

Thingists who  argue that the "thing" could be absolutely anything might just as well say "No!"


----------



## PaulQ

Filsmith said:


> If "thing" is not valid, then we really should omit it from all dictionaries.


Hmmm... That is the straw man fallacy. However, although, as a thinkist, although I can't don't agree with your #62, it is good.


----------



## JulianStuart

Biffo said:


> This has been suggested before. The argument against was that it would not be representative of the general population. I however was brought up in Staffordshire, England. I don't remember the first time I encountered the expression - possibly it was in literature and hence immune from mis-hearing.
> 
> We can compare AE and BE usage by using ngram:
> 
> AE
> http://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...00&year_end=2012&corpus=17&smoothing=3&share=
> 
> BE
> http://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...00&year_end=2008&corpus=18&smoothing=3&share=



You've got a clearer picture coming if you are more specific "_got_ another thing (think) coming" as I posted in #204.  WIthout the _got_, there are quite few legitimate "another thing coming" that are unrelated to this discussion.


----------



## lucas-sp

Biffo said:


> The problem for me is that the thingists dance around as to what 'thing' actually means.


This is a pleasantly distracting point, but it isn't actually relevant. The "thing" is a shifter, like the "think." Its precise _meaning_ will depend on the way it is _used in context_. (Does the "shoe" have a specific meaning in "waiting for the other shoe to drop"? - Yes. No. It depends. Does "does" have a specific meaning in the sentence "Yes, he does"? - Yes. No. It depends.)

Flexibility of meaning/a multiplicity of possible meanings is not the same as _lack_ of meaning.

In "You act like you've got this vice-presidential nomination all sewn up, but you've got another thing/k coming!", we know what the "think/g" is: Circumstances will change, your position in the race will become less solid, and you'll have to confront that situation. You'll probably have to change your attitude.

In "If you think I'm going to let you leave without taking one of my famous mocha-chip brownies with you, you've got another thing/k coming!", we know what the "think/g" is: I'm going to give you a brownie, whether you actually thought I wasn't going to give you a brownie or not.

In all of these sentences, the "another thing/k" is "the opposite of what was implicitly/explicitly expected in the previous clause." It can be good, or bad, or in-between. I think we all _agree_ on this meaning, think-ists and thing-ists alike. (Although there's a bit of a red herring: the thing-ists think the emphasis is on the circumstances that would oblige a rethinking, the think-ists think the emphasis is on the rethinking that would come with the changing circumstances. But the rethink and the circumstances are both implicated in both forms of the expression.)


----------



## JustKate

OK, so some of you want to know what _the thing_ is? I can't speak for everybody, I guess (never, never, *never* would I have thought this would be so controversial, and the WR forum is hardly my first grammar rodeo nor is it even the first place I've seen this debated!), but for me _the thing_ varies. Because you need to remember that "another thing coming" doesn't have to be preceded by "If you think that." This has been brought up before, but I think it bears repeating. (For that matter, "another think coming" isn't always preceded by "If you think that" either, though it is - as far as I can tell - usually preceded by a word that's more or less synonymous with think, e.g., _believe, accept_, etc.)

But if I had to translate the basic "If you think that, you've got another thing coming," what it means is, "If that's what you believe, you're in for a surprise. Another thing is going to happen, something you don't expect." So the thing is, really, another thing - a thing you don't expect. That other thing could be "more thought," of course. Why not?


----------



## Chasint

JustKate said:


> ...But if I had to translate the basic "If you think that, you've got another thing coming," what it means is, "If that's what you believe, you're in for a surprise. Another thing is going to happen, something you don't expect." So the thing is, really, another thing - a thing you don't expect. That other thing could be "more thought," of course. Why not?


Then why not simply say "If you think that, you're in for a surprise."  That makes perfect sense.

Here's the nub for me.  

*Thinkists* are specific. Here are some things a thinkist might say:
"If you think that, you've got a punch on the nose coming."
"If you think that, you've got a surprise coming."
"If you think that, you've got a loan coming."
and of course
"If you think that, you've got a [re]think coming."


*Thingists* are general. Here is something a thingist might say:
"If you think that, you've got another thing coming."
The problem is that we have to guess what the thing might be. It could be absolutely anything. The sentence provides zero information and so is pointless.


----------



## lucas-sp

This I don't understand:





Biffo said:


> *Thinkists* are specific. Here are some things a thinkist might say:
> "If you think that, you've got a punch on the nose coming."
> "If you think that, you've got a loan coming."
> and of course
> "If you think that, you've got a rethink coming."


Why wouldn't a thing-ist say "If you think that, you've got a punch on the nose coming," if they wanted to warn you that they were going to punch you on the nose? And don't think-ists say "If you think that, you've got another think coming" - which makes us guess what exactly this second "think" will be?

And this is flat-out wrong:





> The problem is that we have to guess what the thing might be. It could be absolutely anything. The sentence provides zero information and so is pointless.


That's actually the case with all words: when I say "Take _her_, for example," I could be referring to _absolutely any woman_. Would you say that the sentence "provides zero information" about who she is or that it's "pointless"? We always have to guess, but most sentences provide enough information for us to make a _relatively informed_ guess. "Context reduces the inherent polysemy of language," as was proven sometime in the 1960's.

Actually, in _any real-world situation_, "another thing coming" (if used successfully) will refer to a rather well-defined nexus of things and thinks. See #624.


----------



## Cliffyboy

I concur with other writers, thank you so much for writing this interesting and informative post, nOlqu.

I've often thought about this expression - it's wonderful example, is this, of what expert linguists people are. If one of these was a 'mistake' or 'invalid', its usage would soon become a thing of the past.


----------



## JustKate

Biffo said:


> Then why not simply say "If you think that, you're in for a surprise."  That makes perfect sense.



Sometimes I do. I mean, why would I use the same expression all the time?



Biffo said:


> Here's the nub for me.
> 
> *Thinkists* are specific. Here are some things a thinkist might say:
> "If you think that, you've got a punch on the nose coming."
> "If you think that, you've got a surprise coming."
> "If you think that, you've got a loan coming."
> and of course
> "If you think that, you've got a [re]think coming."
> 
> 
> *Thingists* are general. Here is something a thingist might say:
> "If you think that, you've got another thing coming."
> The problem is that we have to guess what the thing might be. It could be absolutely anything. The sentence provides zero information and so is pointless.



Oh, for goodness' sake! In the first place, what in the *world* makes you think that your "If you think that" examples aren't just as possible for thingist as for a thinkist? I don't even see what you're trying to say here. Remember, thingists start their version of the idiom with "If you think that," too." So why - why? - wouldn't a thingist say "If you think that, you've got a punch in the nose coming" if that's what he thought the other person deserved? 

The reason we all - thinkists and thingists - have been harping on "you've got another thing/think coming" is because* that's the topic of this thread* and that is, after all, *the idiom(s)*. But that doesn't mean we don't all at times say something else after that introductory, "If you think that." Because we do. All of us. But when we do that, we're not using this particular idiom, are we?


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> ... We always have to guess, but most sentences provide enough information for us to make a _relatively informed_ guess. "Context reduces the inherent polysemy of language," as was proven sometime in the 1960's.
> Actually, in _any real-world situation_, "another thing coming" (if used successfully) will refer to a rather well-defined nexus of things and thinks. See #624.


I'll deal with just your second point in this post. Otherwise it all gets too diffuse.

*Thingist*
_"I think you should give me a loan"
"If you think that, you have another thing coming."
_
I'm none the wiser. Do you mean:

_"If you think that, you have a gift of the money coming." (You're feeling generous)
__"If you think that, you have a punch coming." (You're feeling violent)_

There is insufficient context to come to any useful conclusion. I have to ask for a further explanation.


*Thinkist*
_"__I think you should give me a loan"__
"If you think that, you have another think coming."_

Now I know that the next step is my responsibilty. I must think of an alternative.


*Conclusion*
Thinkists give the responsibility to the other person by asking/telling them to reconsider.
Thingists take the responsibility themselves and refuse to disclose their precise intentions.

*EDITED for continuity. See below.*


----------



## lucas-sp

Um...


Biffo said:


> *Thingist*
> _"Can I have a loan?"
> "If you think that, you have another thing coming."
> _
> *Thinkist*
> _"Can I have a loan?"
> "If you think that, you have another think coming."_


Neither of those are possible dialogues - at least I don't think so. They certainly do not illustrate the way in which I would ever use "another thing/k coming." (And honestly, I am just as confused by what the responder in the second dialogue means.)

In the _actual_ examples of _actual_ uses of "thing" - and "think" - we have a _pretty good idea_ of what the "thing/k" is going to be. There are always more possibilities - irony, lying, etc. - the "etiolations of language" that can always transform the connotations of an utterance.


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> Um...
> 
> Neither of those are possible dialogues - at least I don't think so. They certainly do not illustrate the way in which I would ever use "another thing/k coming." (And honestly, I am just as confused by what the responder in the second dialogue means.)
> 
> In the _actual_ examples of _actual_ uses of "thing" - and "think" - we have a _pretty good idea_ of what the "thing/k" is going to be. There are always more possibilities - irony, lying, etc. - the "etiolations of language" that can always transform the connotations of an utterance.


Ah - sorry! I was cutting and pasting and I didn't do it very well. 

The full dialogue would be something like:

_"I think you should give me a loan"__
"If you thingk that, you have another thingk coming."_

I have edited my post #630


----------



## lucas-sp

Um... the examples are still bad?

"If you think I _should _give you a loan, then you've got another thing/k coming" still doesn't sound right to me.

"If you think I'm gonna / going to give you a loan, then you've got another thing/k coming" sounds right to me. Let's dance:


> A: Hey, can I maybe borrow $2000?
> B1: If you think I'm gonna give you another loan, then you've got another thing coming.
> B2: If you think I'm gonna give you another loan, then you've got another think coming.


The B1 speaker means "No way am I going to give you another loan." The B2 speaker means "No way am I going to give you another loan." Both speakers mean "I am not giving you a loan." The meaning runs: _You think: loan. What's going to happen: not-loan -_ in both cases.

The B1 speaker does not mean "I'm going to give you the money" or "I'm going to punch you in the face" or "I'm going to give you a boat!" _Any notion that the B1 speaker is perhaps suggesting some other outcome besides not-loan is a fantasy. That's quite simply not how the phrase is used, even with "thing."_

The B1 speaker _could _mean "I'm going to give you the money," and the B2 speaker _could _mean that too, but then the dialogue would go:





> A: Hey, can I maybe borrow $2000?
> B1: If you think I'm gonna give you another loan, then you've got another thing coming. Ha-ha, I'm messing with you! I'll just give you the money!
> B2: If you think I'm gonna give you another loan, then you've got another think coming. Ha-ha, I'm messing with you! I'll just give you the money!


In short, the two phrases are used (or used in slightly skewed ways) _identically_ by both "thing"-ists and "think"-ists.


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> Um... the examples are still bad?...


I detected that problem and have changed it.

The fact is that you are quibbling about an inessential part of what I wrote (admittedly I was careless). Please try to understand my point of view instead of criticising my poor editing skills.


----------



## Chasint

Let me make my purpose clear. I am not saying that "thing coming" is invalid or that either is better. I am attempting to show that the thing version and the think version actually have different meanings.

Rather than continue late into the night, I'll sleep on it. I know clearly what I want to say but I'm obviously not expressing it well enough enough so far.


----------



## JustKate

Biffo said:


> Let me make my purpose clear. I am not saying that "thing coming" is invalid or that either is better. I am attempting to show that the thing version and the think version actually have different meanings.



I really don't think they do. The only way they would - as far as I can tell - is if thinkists literally mean "If you think that, you literally need to think about it some more." Sometimes no doubt that's what they mean - at least that's how it seems - but most of the time, it seems to mean, "That maybe what you think, but you're wrong." And that's what the thingists usually mean, too.

I know some people farther up thread have said that the thing version is more threatening, but I just don't see it that way. Maybe they're interpreting "thing" more literally that I do. Besides, "If you think that, young lady, you've got another think coming" sounds pretty threatening to me!


----------



## lucas-sp

Biffo said:


> I am attempting to show that the thing version and the think version actually have different meanings.


And pardon me while I attempt to show that they do not! 

I think it's really important to look at these phrases _as they are used_ (always particularly important in the case of idioms). So we have to look at them in reasonably-coherent situations.

Both B1 and B2 - the thing-ist and the think-ist - are specifying that something _won't_ happen. Neither one is stating what _will_ happen. The think-ist doesn't say what the precise thought will be; the thing-ist doesn't say what precise event will happen. They're just saying that these will be different from the expectations of their interlocutor.


----------



## lucas-sp

What about this: if there _is_ a recognizable and reliable difference in meaning between think and thing, then we should be able to reliably _predict _what particular version is used based on the surrounding context.

How about an experiment? Here are 10 recent phrases from Google news, spanning all sorts of dialects and levels of language. Can you tell whether "think" or "thing" was used in the original phrase? (_If not, then there probably isn't any difference in meaning/usage between the "k" and "g" spellings of the phrase._)

The answers are in white at the end of the post. But I'd recommend that you challenge yourself.

1.





> *Lady Gaga's* former personal assistant, who is suing for unpaid overtime has another _______ coming if she thinks Gaga is just going to roll over and pay out. (http://www.afterelton.com/2013/02/cheyenne-jackson-hrc-whoopi-goldberg-nph-ian-somerhalder)


2.





> And Obama has already said that he wants more money: “If Republicans think that I will finish the job of deficit reduction through spending cuts alone, then they’ve got another _______ coming.” (http://www.hpe.com/opinion/commentary/x1506655479/Mike-Hughes-Obama-is-just-getting-started)


3.





> A man who wants a working woman to cook every day because he cannot eat leftovers as he was used to seeing his mother cooking every day and setting the table for daddy – and daddy would come home and have his shoes removed by the children and he sat around the table and removed his dumpling and yam out of the Pyrex dish with his meat in another dish – is no keeper. This man has another _______ coming, as in those days women didn’t have to go out and work and most people didn’t have microwaves and fridges.
> 
> ( http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/maga...-tell-you-ll-be-single-for-life#ixzz2KMPxskjL)


4.





> U.S. citizens that are naïve enough to believe that their drinking water is safe just because it is legal have another _______ coming. (http://www.themontclarion.org/archives/3747955)


5.





> Gay men are probably in general less interested in sports than the average male. I sure as hell never faked an interest in them to fit in with straight peers so if you think I've going to fake an interest in it now to satisfy some moronic theory about some "culture of effeminacy" you have another _______ coming.
> 
> ( http://www.towleroad.com/2013/01/wade-davis-talks-gays-and-the-nfl.html#ixzz2KMQEKaSO)


6.





> If they expected me to come in and say how well they’ve played and how many chances they’ve created they’ve got another _______ coming because the bottom line about playing a game of football is how you get over the finishing line which Southend have and we haven’t. (http://www.echo-news.co.uk/sport/blues/10203674.Oxford_United_manager_Chris_Wilder__We_did_not_deserve_defeat_to_Southend_United/)


7.





> This kid is just going to continue to get better, man. If you’re sleeping on this kid -- you think he’s an easy win -- you’ve got another _______ coming. (http://www.sportsnet.ca/mma/2013/02/07/kyte_ufc_tyron_woodley/)


8.





> Mr Macintosh said: "If John Swinney expects the country to be grateful for the fact he has not quite fully restored the cuts he made last year, then he has got another _______ coming." (http://news.stv.tv/politics/212993-john-swinney-passes-scottish-government-budget-amid-college-funding-dispute/)


9.





> If the administration thinks it can bite the bullet -- allow drilling, take the short-term political hit and move on -- it's got another *______* coming. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wenonah-hauter/with-his-fracking-decision_b_2591109.html)


10. 





> If the fourth-ranked Escanaba Eskymos' hockey team thought their second game with the Alpena Wildcats less than 24 hours apart would be just as easy as their 9-2 victory Friday night, Alpena showed them they had another* _______* coming. (http://www.dailypress.net/page/content.detail/id/540590/Eskymos-complete-sweep-of-Alpena-Wildcats.html?nav=5007)




Answers: 
Think: 3, 5, 8
Thing: 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10


----------



## Cliffyboy

lucas-sp said:


> What about this: if there _is_ a recognizable and reliable difference in meaning between think and thing, then we should be able to reliably _predict _what particular version is used based on the surrounding context.
> 
> How about an experiment? Here are 10 recent phrases from Google news, spanning all sorts of dialects and levels of language. Can you tell whether "think" or "thing" was used in the original phrase? (_If not, then there probably isn't any difference in meaning/usage between the "k" and "g" spellings of the phrase._)
> 
> The answers are in white at the end of the post. But I'd recommend that you challenge yourself.
> 
> 1.
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 6.
> 7.
> 8.
> 9.
> 10.
> 
> 
> Answers:
> Think: 3, 5, 8
> Thing: 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10



A very interesting post, thank you for this, lucas-sp. Personally, I'd be of the view that these two are not strictly interchangeable, so that only a difference, albeit a very slight one, determines which one the speaker uses. I have to say, hand on heart, I got nine out of ten correct.


----------



## mplsray

Biffo said:


> Originally Posted by *mplsray *
> There is at least one more group, those for whom _think_ can indeed be a noun, but a noun utterly irrelevant to the expression "have another thing coming." That's the group I belonged to as a boy, before I learned of the existence of the "have another think coming" variant.
> 
> 
> 
> But that is what I mean by a weak thingist - isn't it?. How is your experience different? Do you mean that you stopped thinking of 'think' as a noun as you grew older?
Click to expand...


I grew up knowing only of the variant "have another thing coming" and learned later that the variant "have another think coming" existed. Neither variant had any effect on my awareness that _think_ could be used as a noun. To me the two variants are a perfect example of the "distinction without a difference" mentioned a few posts ago.

It follows that I am neither a "thingist" nor a "thinkist." The expressions are equal in function and in standard status.


----------



## The Prof

Hmm - I only got 4 right. Of the four sentences that felt to me like perfect candidates for 'think', three of the four turned out to be 'thing'. What's more, as a ''thinkist myself,  No 3 feels like an incorrect use of 'think' - the sentence does not fit my mental blueprint of a 'think" structure.


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> What about this: if there _is_ a recognizable and reliable difference in meaning between think and thing, then we should be able to reliably _predict _what particular version is used based on the surrounding context...


Really?

A very ingenious and interesting idea lucas-sp but fatally flawed. You say that we can predict the choice of a word or phrase from its context? That is patently not true.

Here's my counter example:

The verbs _kick_ and_ punch_ have a recognizable and reliable difference in meaning. Can you reliably predict which was used in the following real life extracts?


However _the keeper ______ed the ball clear_. With the game seemed to be won, Droylsden came in with the sucker punch.
http://www.farsleyafc.co.uk/news08_21151.html

_the Petersfield keeper __ ________ed the ball clear_, but Dann skipped through unnoticed 
http://www.wvyfc.org/Copy (9) of U14.pdf

But once their _keeper __ ________ed the ball_ to safety, the Home team were quick to turn defence into attack 
http://www.footballaid.com/news-mat.../1819/2012-10-11/aston-villa-game-1-2012.html



Unless you follow the sport and recognise the actual games, it is impossible to predict with certainty what the keeper did in each case. You could guess but, even if you got 100% correct, it would be luck.


----------



## Forero

The Prof said:


> Hmm - I only got 4 right. Of the four sentences that felt to me like perfect candidates for 'think', three of the four turned out to be 'thing'. What's more, as a ''thinkist myself,  No 3 feels like an incorrect use of 'think' - the sentence does not fit my mental blueprint of a 'think" structure.


I suspect number 3, and probably some of the others too, was "corrected" by an editor.





Cliffyboy said:


> A very interesting post, thank you for this, lucas-sp. Personally, I'd be of the view that these two are not strictly interchangeable, so that only a difference, albeit a very slight one, determines which one the speaker uses. I have to say, hand on heart, I got nine out of ten correct.


Did you miss number 3 too?


----------



## wandle

The examples in post 638 do indeed show that 'thing' is used in the same sort of contexts as 'think' and with the same effective meaning. However, this certainly does not mean that there is no difference between 'thing' and 'think'. 
Surely commmon sense would indicate that if that is the conclusion, there must be a flaw in the reasoning.

The proper conclusion from the fact that 'thing' is used in this way is, as pointed out earlier in the thread with similar examples, that the 'thing' version is parasitic upon and derived from the 'think' version. It simply gives us more evidence that 'thing' is a corruption of 'think' (that is, a version accidentally changed in the course of oral transmission).


----------



## mplsray

wandle said:


> The examples in post 638 do indeed show that 'thing' is used in the same sort of contexts as 'think' and with the same effective meaning. However, this certainly does not mean that there is no difference between 'thing' and 'think'.
> Surely commmon sense would indicate that if that is the conclusion, there must be a flaw in the reasoning.
> 
> The proper conclusion from the fact that 'thing' is used in this way is, as pointed out earlier in the thread with similar examples, that the 'thing' version is parasitic upon and derived from the 'think' version. It simply gives us more evidence that 'thing' is a corruption of 'think' (that is, a version accidentally changed in the course of oral transmission).



Corruption, although once used in linguistics, always was a loaded word. (The link is to the Wikipedia article "Corruption (linguistics).") _Parasitism_ carries negative connotations as well. Neither term aids the current discussion.

It seems to me that if there were any relevant differences between _thing_ and _think_ in the expression in question, people who usually use one expression would have occasion to use the other, and vice-versa. Since this does not happen, there is no relevant difference.

The differences that have been recognized in this thread only occur when people go out of their way to analyze the expression, not when they are actually using it in everyday speech. To the function of the expression, these differences are irrelevant.


----------



## lucas-sp

mplsray said:


> ... if there were any relevant differences between _thing_ and _think_ in the expression in question, people who usually use one expression would have occasion to use the other, and vice-versa. Since this does not happen, there is no relevant difference.
> 
> The differences that have been recognized in this thread only occur *when people go out of their way to analyze the expression, not when they are actually using it in everyday speech. *To the function of the expression, these differences are irrelevant.


Word. As Wittgenstein said, "the meaning of a [linguistic unit] is its use in a way (form) of life." In use and in the real world, these expressions are interchangeable; they consequently have the same meaning. (Okay, once upon a time the "think" version might have been "more" jokey, but nowadays that joke is not heard/felt or is no longer humorous.)

To say that "color" and "colour" have the same meaning does not imply that the letters "o" and "ou" are interchangeable in other contexts. Also, spelling "colour" tells us something about what form of life the writer participates in. That's a different kind of "meaning" than denotation. 

What I am saying is that there is no effective difference in denotative meaning between "to have another thing coming" and "to have another think coming." _What we have yet to determine_ (because we can't get beyond the question of which version is "right") is whether either version is characteristic of any particular form of life, whether any particular kind of speaker is more likely to use either. My sense is that the split happens everywhere; no one group of speakers today is more likely to use "think" than any other. Perhaps younger people are more likely to use "thing." (Nobody is saying that the words "thing" and "think" are always interchangeable.)

We have discussed the idea of "which came first." One of the things we learned from that discussion is that the "thing" version appeared in print very shortly after the "think" version gets printed first. So if this is a case of "parasitism," the parasite emerges almost at the same time as the "host." The two versions have always existed and, I think, have always been inseparable.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

I would agree with you both, but for the fact that I would use them (both and) differently myself. (I say 'would', because in practice, I use neither - they're both really very silly things to say.)


----------



## JulianStuart

lucas-sp said:


> We have discussed the idea of "which came first." One of the things we learned from that discussion is that the "thing" version appeared in print very shortly after the "think" version gets printed first. So if this is a case of "parasitism," the parasite emerges almost at the same time as the "host." The two versions have always existed and, I think, have always been inseparable.


Until the 1960s, however, _think was far more prevalent, in the eyes of the editors of the published books in the Ngram database._  So, yes, the "mishearing" went into print fairly soon after the original was coined/first committed to print, proving what we have known all along: that _think coming_ can sound a lot like _thing coming_ to many people (and a couple of early editors were in that category). It seems that, regardless of what is _actually_ said, "first-time hearers*" will usually latch on to what they think eek they heard and adopt that one, probably without analysing it much.  Then they will use it, probably in a way that their listener doesn't hear either, so the listener will either hear the version they've heard before, or a newcomer will hear one version and adopt it.  Both are now quite widely heard and used.
_I_ remain convinced that the expression arose as a "nouny" usage of the word think, and that the explanations of the _thing_ meaning are "cooked up" (and  unsatisfactory, with regard to the explanation of the use of "another" in particular) to fit the bill.  The explanation may be re-heated when someone hears that the other version is also in common use and finds it possible to identify nuances in meaning between the two.  Nonetheless, I accept that the _thing_ version is a valid idiom, in the sense of the definition in the WRF dictionary:


> a group of words whose meaning cannot be predicted from the meanings of the constituent words,




*Before they are primed by any discussion of what the epxpression actually is - so everyone participating in this thread has now excluded themselves as "first-time hearers".


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> ... *A.* What I am saying is that there is no effective difference in denotative meaning between "to have another thing coming" and "to have another think coming." *B.* _What we have yet to determine_ (because we can't get beyond the question of which version is "right") is whether either version is characteristic of any particular form of life, whether any particular kind of speaker is more likely to use either. My sense is that the split happens everywhere; no one group of speakers today is more likely to use "think" than any other. Perhaps younger people are more likely to use "thing." (Nobody is saying that the words "thing" and "think" are always interchangeable.)...


To answer* B *first: I think many of us, myself included, have progressed beyond which is 'right'. I suspect that many people have their first experience of the expression from reading it. Older people will be familiar with 'corrected' versions found in published books. Younger people will be familiar with e-chat and text-speak and will be exposed to variations perpetrated by their peers.


*A. * The question remains for me about the meaning of the two versions. I maintain that the expression has distinct meanings for the speaker/listener according to which version they imagine is correct. Thus if thinkist P utters  "have another think coming" and thingist Q hears it as "to have another thing coming" then we have a possible miscommunication. This may be minor but there will be situations where the difference is important.

Example 

An unsympathetic  psychiatric nurse is trying to get a paranoid patient to take calming drugs.

_Thinkist psychiatric nurse: If you think you will get out of taking these drugs, you have another think coming.  (Intended meaning - You will have to think again because it will happen anyway)
Thingist paranoid patient: Don't threaten me!  (Perceived meaning - I'm being threatened by some unspecified consequence - some nasty "thing")
Thinkist psychiatric nurse: I'm not threatening you!_
Etc.


----------



## Loob

Biffo said:


> I maintain that the expression has distinct meanings for the speaker/listener according to which version they imagine is correct.


You can "maintain" all you like, Biffo: all the evidence points in the opposite direction.


----------



## Chasint

Loob said:


> You can "maintain" all you like, Biffo: all the evidence points in the opposite direction.


Please give some of this "evidence"


----------



## mplsray

If there were a difference in effective meaning or in use between the two expressions, I would expect that difference to show up in discussions from professionals--linguists and usage authorities. I have read a lot about this expression in the works of such people, but this thread is, as far as I can remember, the first time I have seen that particular hypothesis advanced. The burden of proof is on the person who puts forward the novel argument.


----------



## Chasint

mplsray said:


> If there were a difference in effective meaning or in use between the two expressions, I would expect that difference to show up in discussions from professionals--linguists and usage authorities. I have read a lot about this expression in the works of such people, but this thread is, as far as I can remember, the first time I have seen that particular hypothesis advanced. The burden of proof is on the person who puts forward the novel argument.


Well, unlike you I have not studied the subject extensively. Most of my evidence comes from this very thread. I prefer not to read the whole thing again! Instead here are three examples by thingists. The first explicitly says that the think version is not menacing enough!

Examples:
#21 (_an unspecified but ominous and menacing "thing" is headed his way. The mystery of the "thing" adds to its threat)_
#51 _(contains two similar points of view)_

mplsray - please could you direct us to to the linguists and authorities on this subject. I'd be interested to read what they say.


----------



## Loob

Biffo said:


> I prefer not to read the whole thing again!


I think you should, Biffo.


----------



## Chasint

Loob said:


> I think you should, Biffo.


 At least I took the trouble to find evidence for my point of view. Where's yours?


----------



## jasmithers

Just my $.02:

I grew up in the northeast U.S. and have lived and traveled all over in the U.S. and various other  countries, meeting English speakers from around the world.  I've never, ever, EVER heard "You've got another think coming."  If I heard a non-native speaker say "think" in this context, I would correct them (assuming our relationship were comfortable enough for that).

Of course that doesn't mean that "think" is wrong, but perhaps it's a regional thing?  Wiktionary says that "thing" is an alternate form, and lists "think" as the standard.

This reminds me of when I saw just last year, for the first time in my life (40+ years), "rôle" being used in English.  After some research I had to accept that it's actually not unheard of.  Go figure...


----------



## Chasint

jasmithers said:


> Just my $.02:
> 
> I grew up in the northeast U.S. and have lived and traveled all over in the U.S. and various other countries, meeting English speakers from around the world. I've never, ever, EVER heard "You've got another think coming." If I heard a non-native speaker say "think" in this context, I would correct them (assuming our relationship were comfortable enough for that).
> 
> Of course that doesn't mean that "think" is wrong, but perhaps it's a regional thing? Wiktionary says that "thing" is an alternate form, and lists "think" as the standard.
> 
> This reminds me of when I saw just last year, for the first time in my life (40+ years), "rôle" being used in English. After some research I had to accept that it's actually not unheard of. Go figure...


Hi jasmithers and welcome to the forum! 
It's difficult to come up with a new idea on this thread. Your ideas have been discussed before (except no-one else has mentioned rôle - so points for that!)


----------



## lucas-sp

Biffo said:


> _Thinkist psychiatric nurse: If you think you will get out of taking these drugs, you have another think coming.  (Intended meaning - You will have to think again because it will happen anyway)
> Thingist paranoid patient: Don't threaten me!  (Perceived meaning - I'm being threatened by some unspecified consequence - some nasty "thing")
> Thinkist psychiatric nurse: I'm not threatening you!_


Just some proof here. The two people understand exactly the same thing: the patient will not be able to get out of taking these drugs.

The patient _would not like to take the drugs_, so s/he experiences it as _something undesirable_. Hence the "scariness" or "threat."

_Normally_ this phrase is _used_ in those situations: you enjoy thinking what you're thinking, so you aren't going to "think again" without some sort of outside influence. Since you _enjoy_ thinking what you're thinking, this outside influence will be _perceived as negative_.

But there are also uses where the surprise will be pleasant, as in the case of "If you think I'm going to let you leave without one of my world-famous chocolate chip brownies, then you've got another thing/k coming!" No threat there.

So there is no implicit _threat_ in "another thing coming"; that's simply the way the phrase is _most commonly used_​.


----------



## JulianStuart

jasmithers said:


> Just my $.02:
> 
> I grew up in the northeast U.S. and have lived and traveled all over in the U.S. and various other  countries, meeting English speakers from around the world.  I've never, ever, EVER heard "You've got another think coming."  If I heard a non-native speaker say "think" in this context, I would correct them (assuming our relationship were comfortable enough for that).
> 
> Of course that doesn't mean that "think" is wrong, but perhaps it's a regional thing?  Wiktionary says that "thing" is an alternate form, and lists "think" as the standard.
> 
> This reminds me of when I saw just last year, for the first time in my life (40+ years), "rôle" being used in English.  After some research I had to accept that it's actually not unheard of.  Go figure...



See my post 648 above.  It's quite possible that you have only heard the thing version because that's what you thought they said, while tsome of them may have actually said think!  Wiktionary is consistent with (may be based on) the data extracted from Google books (via Ngram viewer) showing it as much more common in print than the thing version.


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> Just some proof here. The two people understand exactly the same thing: the patient will not be able to get out of taking these drugs.
> 
> The patient _would not like to take the drugs_, so s/he experiences it as _something undesirable_. Hence the "scariness" or "threat."
> 
> _Normally_ this phrase is _used_ in those situations: you enjoy thinking what you're thinking, so you aren't going to "think again" without some sort of outside influence. Since you _enjoy_ thinking what you're thinking, this outside influence will be _perceived as negative_.
> 
> But there are also uses where the surprise will be pleasant, as in the case of "If you think I'm going to let you leave without one of my world-famous chocolate chip brownies, then you've got another thing/k coming!" No threat there.
> 
> So there is no implicit _threat_ in "another thing coming"; that's simply the way the phrase is _most commonly used_​.


This is why I specifically chose a paranoid person. If you have any experience of people with this serious condition you will know that they tend to perceive threats everywhere. However that is really not my point.

My hypothesis
1. Some people see "another thing" as an implied unspecified threat. (Aside: their imagination could make the threat arbitrarily unpleasant)
2. Some people see "think", not as a threat but as an order to reconsider. The only ill-consequence is that the event (e.g. the loan) will not take place.
3. If a person from category 1 meets a person from category 2, there is the potential for a misunderstanding. (Aside: In some extreme cases this misunderstanding could be serious)

In order to verify my hypothesis all I have to do is 
A. Verify that at least one person in the world belongs to each of categories 1 and 2 and...
B. Invent a scenario where, should these people meet and use the expression, they could misunderstand each other.

It is unlikely that anyone who has followed this thread assiduously until now would come in either of those categories but, looking back, we can see that at the beginning some people did have those limited views before they were enlightened by people with wider or opposing views.


----------



## PaulQ

lucas-sp said:


> ..."If you think I'm going to let you leave without one of my world-famous chocolate chip brownies, then you've got another thing/k coming!" No threat there.


You have clearly never tasted those so-called "chocolate brownies"... 

The more I hear sentences where "you've got another think/g coming!" the more I am convinced that it is, "then you should have second thoughts." but "another think" is used for the effect.

Despite the fact that "another thing coming" can appear outside the phrase, in Ngram, BE shows it as far less popular.

The same is true of AE. 

In normal comparisons, were two phrases so compared. such figures would point clearly to one being the accepted version and the other the bastard son.

I suggest a look at the comparison of "I could not care less" and "I could care less" for a similar disparity.


----------



## Chasint

PaulQ said:


> ...In normal comparisons, were two phrases so compared. such figures would point clearly to one being the accepted version and the other the bastard son...


With all the goodwill of a fellow thinkist, I believe that this aspect of the debate has already been exhausted. 
I agree wholeheartedly that the dictionaries and the statistics support us but I have to admit that the thingist version has its own peculiar logic and so is viable regardless of its parentage.


----------



## David_Porta

Biffo said:


> ... the thingist version ... is viable ...




Perhaps.

Or [guffaw] you may have another think coming!


----------



## jasmithers

JulianStuart said:


> See my post 648 above.  It's quite possible that you have only heard the thing version because that's what you thought they said, while tsome of them may have actually said think!  Wiktionary is consistent with (may be based on) the data extracted from Google books (via Ngram viewer) showing it as much more common in print than the thing version.



I thought about that, and was going to say something to that effect, but on second thought I came to the conclusion that it's unlikely given the phonetics:

If you say "…thing coming," you have a voiced [ŋ] followed by an unvoiced [k].  Since they're both velar, the first consonant flows smoothly into the second.  But if you say "…think coming" you have phonemically two velar [k]'s back-to-back, which (at least in my mouth) becomes phonetically a glottal stop and then a [k].  I don't think a native speaker would normally mistake one of these combinations for the other, as the glottal stop is quite distinct.  If one were to actually enunciate both [k]'s, then there would be an even more noticeable "space" between the two consonants as the mouth reset its shape from the _ in "thing/think" to the [__ə] in "coming."

But hey, if you're on a noisy train, in a nightclub, etc., maybe it's possible?  Food for thought..._


----------



## PaulQ

You have been listening to siren voices. They will have you saying "thing" before the week is out. 

Where do you stand on "Second thoughts" -> "another think"?


----------



## Chasint

PaulQ said:


> You have been listening to siren voices. They will have you saying "thing" before the week is out.
> 
> Where do you stand on "Second thoughts" -> "another think"?


Who are you addressing PaulQ? 

I'm a die-hard, dyed-in-the wool thinkist. My take is the same as yours except I call it a _rethink_.


----------



## Chasint

jasmithers said:


> I thought about that, and was going to say something to that effect, but on second thought I came to the conclusion that it's unlikely given the phonetics:
> 
> If you say "…thing coming," you have a voiced [ŋ] followed by an unvoiced [k].  Since they're both velar, the first consonant flows smoothly into the second.  But if you say "…think coming" you have phonemically two velar [k]'s back-to-back, which (at least in my mouth) becomes phonetically a glottal stop and then a [k].  I don't think a native speaker would normally mistake one of these combinations for the other, as the glottal stop is quite distinct.  If one were to actually enunciate both [k]'s, then there would be an even more noticeable "space" between the two consonants as the mouth reset its shape from the _ in "thing/think" to the [__ə] in "coming."
> 
> But hey, if you're on a noisy train, in a nightclub, etc., maybe it's possible?  Food for thought..._


_
You're going to hate me but this has already been explored across several posts including for example #472
Sorry to be such a drag. I'm simply trying to prevent endless repetition. 

Tip: You can see if a subject has been covered before by searching the thread for a particular keyword._


----------



## David_Porta

PaulQ said:


> As an aside, and being as this thread is so long, it would be interesting to have a poll - even more interesting would be to combine the place where those voting spent the majority of their childhood and their choice of thing/k.



Even more interesting would be to combine a recounting of one's first encounter with the phrase.

No, wait, that would work only for people with exceptional memories.


----------



## JulianStuart

jasmithers said:


> I thought about that, and was going to say something to that effect, but on second thought I came to the conclusion that it's unlikely given the phonetics:
> 
> If you say "…thing coming," you have a voiced [ŋ] followed by an unvoiced [k].  Since they're both velar, the first consonant flows smoothly into the second.  But if you say "…think coming" you have phonemically two velar [k]'s back-to-back, which (at least in my mouth) becomes phonetically a glottal stop and then a [k].  I don't think a native speaker would normally mistake one of these combinations for the other, as the glottal stop is quite distinct.  If one were to actually enunciate both [k]'s, then there would be an even more noticeable "space" between the two consonants as the mouth reset its shape from the _ in "thing/think" to the [__ə] in "coming."
> 
> But hey, if you're on a noisy train, in a nightclub, etc., maybe it's possible?  Food for thought..._


_
I won't try to find the earlier discussion (of the technical aspects of the sounds) in the thread*, just to say that there are variations in the continuum between the extremes you characterize.  If someone says the expression as a series of separate words, it's clear there will be no mixup.  However, when people speak quickly and decrease the extent of voicing, for example, and some just don't enunciate very clearly anyway - particularly eschewing clear glottal stops, there is plenty of room for mishearing.  Then add the noisy environments and viola eek


* Edit: Biffo's post above mine did just that #472


A kind soul pointed out my typo (viola) and I responded, "If you thought that was accidental, you have another string coming "_


----------



## wandle

mplsray said:


> Corruption, although once used in linguistics, always was a loaded word. (The link is to the Wikipedia article "Corruption (linguistics).") _Parasitism_ carries negative connotations as well. Neither term aids the current discussion.


These terms are not pejorative in their correct technical use, nor are they out of date. 
I shall try to show their value in this discussion by developing my post 644.

First, here are examples of 'corruption' in the technical sense.

The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Folktales and Fairy Tales 
Donald Haase 2007
_He thought such borrowings result from corruption due to imperfect oral transmission. _

Animal Imagery and Oral Discourse in Havelok's First Fight 
Scott Kleinman, Viator 35 (2004): 
_because of unpolished writing or the corruption of an earlier story through oral transmission_

The fact that a word or phrase may become altered as a result of oral transmission has long been recognised as a standard element in criticism and linguistics. The closeness (not identity) of sound between 'think' and 'thing' is just the sort of factor which gives rise to corruption, that is, alteration, of an expression. That simple fact is almost too obvious to mention.  

Also obvious, but more interesting, is that in the combination 'think coming' there is a tendency in conversation for one of the two 'k' sounds to disappear, either because it is not clearly articulated by the speaker or because it is not perceived by the listener. Less obvious, but more interesting still, is the fact that the converse of this is not true. In other words, there is no comparable tendency (that is, from speech processes as such) for a second 'k' sound to be inserted between the words 'thing coming', either by the speaker or by the listener. 

Most interesting, however, is the corollary of this: namely, that there is a natural tendency for 'think coming' to become corrupted (in this technical sense) into 'thing coming' in the course of oral transmission (and especially from parents to children):  but no tendency for the reverse to happen. 'Thing coming' will not tend as a result of mere speech processes to be corrupted into 'think coming'. This particular example of natural corruption in transmission works only one way.  

Regardless of how fast or slow the process may be, it goes one way only. Therefore we should expect, purely as a result of natural speech processes, a slow change from 'think coming' towards 'thing coming'. However, by the same token, we cannot expect such a change the other way. It follows from this that if 'thing coming' were the original form, there would be no tendency for it to change into 'think coming'. 

If the expression starts as 'think coming', the time will come, by natural processes, when the two forms both exist side by side. Whereas if it starts as 'thing coming', that will remain the only version. Consequently, the fact that the two forms now exist together goes to show that 'think coming' is the original version. This in turn is confirmed by the ngrams which show that 'think coming' was for decades the greatly predominant form and that 'thing coming' has risen in the following generations. 

'Think coming' was prevalent first.


----------



## wandle

As regards 'parasitic', I mean that in a broader sense than the strict linguistic one. 
In fact, I am tempted to call it the philosophical sense, exemplified in these extracts:

Michael Dummett: Contributions to Philosophy 
edited by B.M. Taylor
_I am myself strongly inclined to say, first, that no one can be said to mean something by an utterance unless he understands it, and, secondly, that it is only in a parasitic, derivative or attenuated sense that an utterance may be said to mean something that the speaker does not mean by it._ 

Handout by Arif Ahmed 
(Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Cambridge since 2011)
_Thus ‘calculating in the head’: here we are using ‘calculating’ in a secondary or parasitic sense. Only if you know what calculation on paper is can you grasp the notion of ‘calculating in the head’ ..._

In both these examples, an expression is called 'parasitic' because it depends for its meaning upon another expression. That is just the case with 'thing coming'. It is parasitic, in this sense, upon 'think coming' because it depends for its meaning on the pre-established meaning of the form which was prevalent first. The examples collected by *lucas-sp* in post 638 as well as those I presented in an earlier post go to show that 'thing coming' is regularly used in similar contexts and with similar effective meaning to 'think coming'.

However, as a great many posts have pointed out, there is no necessary reason, from the sense of the words themselves, why 'thing coming' should mean the same as 'think coming'. The phrase could mean a great many other things, if the words are taken on their own. However, in context, in actual practice, they regularly show the same meaning as 'think coming'. Why should that be?

The answer, I submit, is that while the gradual change described above was taking place (the corruption by natural speech processes of 'think coming' into 'thing coming'), the expression was still being used in the typical contexts belonging to 'think coming'. The older generation understood it as 'think coming' and used it accordingly. Consequently the younger generation, although in many cases they perceived it as 'thing coming', nevertheless learned to use it in contexts appropriate to 'think coming'. 

Result: increasing numbers of people who consciously believe the expression is 'thing coming' but unconsciously use it as if it were 'think coming'.


----------



## mplsray

If we're talking philosophy, then I would opt for the metaphor of evolution through natural selection. The _thing_ version has proven more fit in some environments than the _think_ version, although the _think_ version remains fit for some environments and has thus not gone extinct. Two other examples of the same sort of thing are the continued existence of the idioms "taking the piss" alongside "taking the mick(ey)" in British English and the idioms "I couldn't care less" alongside "I could care less" in American English. 

Biological parasites have, of course, evolved. The difference between biological parasitism and what you are suggesting is the relationship between the _thing_ and _think_ versions of the expression in question is that the _thing_ version could easily survive if the original version—and I agree that the _think_ version was likely to be the original version—went extinct, whereas a biological parasite dies when its host dies.

There's also the matter of the connotations of _parasitism_ being entirely negative, which is another reason that it, and the expression _corruption_, are best avoided in linguistic discussions. (They contrast with a term such as _dialect,_ which even though it has mostly negative connotation to the general public, has proven valuable in linguistics in determining how to best think about language.)


----------



## Einstein

mplsray said:


> The _thing_ version has proven more fit in some environments than the _think_ version, although the _think_ version remains fit for some environments and has thus not gone extinct.


You could equally well say, "The _think_ version has proven more fit in some environments than the _thing_ version, although the _thing_ version remains fit for some environments and has thus not gone extinct.
It all depends on your personal experience; like many others I had never come across the _thing _version, just as many thingists had never heard the _think _version.
I'm now going to unsubscibe from this thread! In spite of the displays of tolerance by both sides I have a sneaking feeling that everyone is hoping to find evidence that will finally prove their version is the original, "correct" one! It's what I hoped too, but if it were possible it would already have happened and we wouldn't be at post #673! Unsubscribing is my personal choice and I wish everyone else happy debating!


----------



## Cliffyboy

Forero said:


> I suspect number 3, and probably some of the others too, was "corrected" by an editor.Did you miss number 3 too?



Sorry for the delay in replying, Forero, and most interestingly, yes, I just checked my answers and 3 was the one I missed.


----------



## Cliffyboy

wandle said:


> The examples in post 638 do indeed show that 'thing' is used in the same sort of contexts as 'think' and with the same effective meaning. However, this certainly does not mean that there is no difference between 'thing' and 'think'.
> Surely commmon sense would indicate that if that is the conclusion, there must be a flaw in the reasoning.
> 
> The proper conclusion from the fact that 'thing' is used in this way is, as pointed out earlier in the thread with similar examples, that the 'thing' version is parasitic upon and derived from the 'think' version. It simply gives us more evidence that 'thing' is a corruption of 'think' (that is, a version accidentally changed in the course of oral transmission).



Well, I see what you mean but are you sure it being a 'corruption' adequately explains it? If the horrible 'Everythink is going wrong' is a corruption, then clearly 'You've got another thing coming' isn't. Surely it has obtained currency because it also makes sense?


----------



## Cliffyboy

mplsray said:


> Corruption, although once used in linguistics, always was a loaded word. (The link is to the Wikipedia article "Corruption (linguistics).") _Parasitism_ carries negative connotations as well. Neither term aids the current discussion.
> 
> It seems to me that if there were any relevant differences between _thing_ and _think_ in the expression in question, people who usually use one expression would have occasion to use the other, and vice-versa. Since this does not happen, there is no relevant difference.
> 
> The differences that have been recognized in this thread only occur when people go out of their way to analyze the expression, not when they are actually using it in everyday speech. To the function of the expression, these differences are irrelevant.



It's a fair point about the analysing but I don't know, if we are talking about common usage, then it surely goes without saying that a person has a choice, as it were, as to which of the two they use, even if it is subconscious, which might, in a way, make it even more of a valid consideration. Maybe it would be more fruitful to think of the desired effect of the communication on the person(s) addressed? 

Imagine I'm talking to a student at school where I used to teach, say:

'If you think I'm going to accept this, you've got another thing coming.'

'If you think I'm going to accept this, you've got another think coming.'

They cannot be identical because if they were, only one of them would exist. In my above utterance, I would have to be thinking of my knowledge of the student and the circumstances as well, that would affect my choice. And why did I myself put 'thing' first and 'think' second? Was I moving up or moving down?


----------



## wandle

mplsray said:


> "I couldn't care less" alongside "I could care less"


It may well be that 'I could care less' is a corruption (accidental alteration from the original form) of 'I couldn't care less' due to failed or unclear articulation of the third syllable. I would also expect a similar pattern of use as with 'thing coming': the changed form rising in frequency sometime after the original. No comparable mispronunciation can be shown in the case of 'taking the mickey', though.

'Parasitic' in this usage means 'dependent for its meaning upon another expression'. This is a language point. It is not about biological parasitism. The key to it is that the specific meaning illustrated in the examples in post 638 and my own earlier post could not be deduced from the vague expression 'thing coming' were it not for the fact that it is used in contexts appropriate to the pre-established form 'think coming'.

There is no benefit and no point in bringing other meanings of the above terms into play.


----------



## Cliffyboy

wandle said:


> These terms are not pejorative in their correct technical use, nor are they out of date.
> I shall try to show their value in this discussion by developing my post 644.
> 
> First, here are examples of 'corruption' in the technical sense.
> 
> The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Folktales and Fairy Tales
> Donald Haase 2007
> _He thought such borrowings result from corruption due to imperfect oral transmission. _
> 
> Animal Imagery and Oral Discourse in Havelok's First Fight
> Scott Kleinman, Viator 35 (2004):
> _because of unpolished writing or the corruption of an earlier story through oral transmission_
> 
> The fact that a word or phrase may become altered as a result of oral transmission has long been recognised as a standard element in criticism and linguistics. The closeness (not identity) of sound between 'think' and 'thing' is just the sort of factor which gives rise to corruption, that is, alteration, of an expression. That simple fact is almost too obvious to mention.
> 
> Also obvious, but more interesting, is that in the combination 'think coming' there is a tendency in conversation for one of the two 'k' sounds to disappear, either because it is not clearly articulated by the speaker or because it is not perceived by the listener. Less obvious, but more interesting still, is the fact that the converse of this is not true. In other words, there is no comparable tendency (that is, from speech processes as such) for a second 'k' sound to be inserted between the words 'thing coming', either by the speaker or by the listener.
> 
> Most interesting, however, is the corollary of this: namely, that there is a natural tendency for 'think coming' to become corrupted (in this technical sense) into 'thing coming' in the course of oral transmission (and especially from parents to children):  but no tendency for the reverse to happen. 'Thing coming' will not tend as a result of mere speech processes to be corrupted into 'think coming'. This particular example of natural corruption in transmission works only one way.
> 
> Regardless of how fast or slow the process may be, it goes one way only. Therefore we should expect, purely as a result of natural speech processes, a slow change from 'think coming' towards 'thing coming'. However, by the same token, we cannot expect such a change the other way. It follows from this that if 'thing coming' were the original form, there would be no tendency for it to change into 'think coming'.
> 
> If the expression starts as 'think coming', the time will come, by natural processes, when the two forms both exist side by side. Whereas if it starts as 'thing coming', that will remain the only version. Consequently, the fact that the two forms now exist together goes to show that 'think coming' is the original version. This in turn is confirmed by the ngrams which show that 'think coming' was for decades the greatly predominant form and that 'thing coming' has risen in the following generations.
> 
> 'Think coming' was prevalent first.



That is, indeed, very interesting, but it does rest upon the assumption that it was sound and pronunciation that led to the corruption, if corruption it is. Why cannot it be just as valid to argue that it was sense and meaning and intent that led to the use of both, and that the development of, 'You've got another think coming', came after 'You've got another thing coming', especially since 'think' is not a noun and 'thing' is?


----------



## wandle

Cliffyboy said:


> Surely it has obtained currency because it also makes sense?


As explained in post 671, 'thing coming' depends for its meaning upon the pre-established form 'think coming'.


----------



## mplsray

Cliffyboy said:


> It's a fair point about the analysing but I don't know, if we are talking about common usage, then it surely goes without saying that a person has a choice, as it were, as to which of the two they use, even if it is subconscious, which might, in a way, make it even more of a valid consideration. Maybe it would be more fruitful to think of the desired effect of the communication on the person(s) addressed?
> 
> Imagine I'm talking to a student at school where I used to teach, say:
> 
> 'If you think I'm going to accept this, you've got another thing coming.'
> 
> 'If you think I'm going to accept this, you've got another think coming.'
> 
> They cannot be identical because if they were, only one of them would exist. In my above utterance, I would have to be thinking of my knowledge of the student and the circumstances as well, that would affect my choice. And why did I myself put 'thing' first and 'think' second? Was I moving up or moving down?



The average person has no choice in the matter, since he will use the version he first learned and be utterly unaware of the other version. It's not like the "taking the piss"/"taking the mick(ey)" distinction I mentioned in an earlier post where a speaker (in this case, of British English) learns two versions of an expression which are to be used in different situations.


----------



## wandle

Cliffyboy said:


> That is, indeed, very interesting, but it does rest upon the assumption that it was sound and pronunciation that led to the corruption, if corruption it is. Why cannot it be just as valid to argue that it was sense and meaning and intent that led to the use of both, and that the development of, 'You've got another think coming', came after 'You've got another thing coming', especially since 'think' is not a noun and 'thing' is?


'Think' is a noun, in colloquial use, and recognised as such by authoritative dictionaries including the OED. This point has been made repeatedly in the thread.
The reason why the process of corruption from 'think' to 'thing' only works one way has also been explained more than once, inlcuding post 670, which also repeats the frequently-made point that the Google ngrams show that 'think coming' became prevalent decades before 'thing coming' reached any significant currency.


----------



## Cliffyboy

wandle said:


> As explained in post 671, 'thing coming' depends for its meaning upon the pre-established form 'think coming'.



But that surely cannot be anything other than conjecture, when push comes to shove? There can be no way of validating it, and it's possible to maintain that the effect is here presupposing the cause. Of course, it might well be the case but it might also might well not be.


----------



## PaulQ

Given #670 and #681, I think we are talking about "the balance of probability", which must lie heavily in favour of the conjecture and put the onus of proof on thingists.


----------



## wandle

wandle said:


> As explained in post 671, 'thing coming' depends for its meaning upon the pre-established form 'think coming'.





Cliffyboy said:


> But that surely cannot be anything other than conjecture, when push comes to shove?


If you read through the thread, there are many posts pointing out that the phrase 'thing coming' could mean many things. It is open to a lot of different interpretations.
That is perfectly true, if you consider the words out of context. 

However, if you do a search such as *lucas-sp *did in post 638, you find the phrase is regularly used in the same contexts and with the same meaning as 'think coming'.
There must be a reason why that is so.


----------



## mplsray

wandle said:


> 'Parasitic' in this usage means 'dependent for its meaning upon another expression'. This is a language point. It is not about biological parasitism. The key to it is that the specific meaning illustrated in the examples in post 638 and my own earlier post could not be deduced from the vague expression 'thing coming' were it not for the fact that it is used in contexts appropriate to the pre-established form 'think coming'.
> 
> There is no benefit and no point in bringing other meanings of the above terms into play.



As far as I can tell, "parasite" is not used in linguistics in the manner you suggest. It is, rather, used as a term in phonetics synonymous with _anaptyxis,_ _epenthesis,_ and _svarabhaktic, _which involves the insertion of a vowel into a word which did not previously have it. That is the way it treated, for example, in the _Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics_ by Hadumod Bussmann (article "anaptyxix"). The Oxford English Dictionary adds the possibility that a parasite can be an added consonant (article "parasite, _n.," _entry 4).


----------



## wandle

As I have said, I am using the term 'parasitic' not in the strict linguistic sense, but in the well-established broader sense employed by the philosophers I have quoted in post 671.


----------



## Cliffyboy

wandle said:


> 'Think' is a noun, in colloquial use, and recognised as such by authoritative dictionaries including the OED. This point has been made repeatedly in the thread.
> The reason why the process of corruption from 'think' to 'thing' only works one way has also been explained more than once, inlcuding post 670, which also repeats the frequently-made point that the Google ngrams show that 'think coming' became prevalent decades before 'thing coming' reached any significant currency.



Yes, I know, but saying it is a noun in the colloquial sense, does not alter the fact that grammatically it is not. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that authoritative dictionaries, some of which I own and consult, have been 'forced', as it were, into allowing and accepting 'think' as a noun, simply because of this usage. Even if it is the case that the 'think' came before 'thing', it is still an assumption, which post 670 rests upon, that the currency gained was through sound and pronunciation, and that is the only reason why the process of corruption is one way. I personally do not even accept the view that the 'k' and 'g' sounds are that close. Wouldn't it be reasonable to argue, or just think, for that matter, that other words containing those sounds would be open to some similar corruption?


----------



## wandle

Well, if the Oxford English Dictionary says it is a noun (informal) that means that it is a noun grammatically in that sphere of use.


Cliffyboy said:


> Wouldn't it be reasonable to argue, or just think, for that matter, that other words containing those sounds would be open to some similar corruption?


That not only could but does regularly happen.
It is a recognised phenomenon of language change that pronunciation tends to shift from letter-combinations relatively harder to pronounce towards combinations that are easier to pronounce. Scholars have recorded changes of this kind across many languages. 
However, they have found no such tendency to change from combinations easier to pronounce towards those that are harder to pronounce. It is a one-way trend, like entropy, of which it is in fact a form.


----------



## Cliffyboy

wandle said:


> If you read through the thread, there are many posts pointing out that the phrase 'thing coming' could mean many things. It is open to a lot of different interpretations.
> That is perfectly true, if you consider the words out of context.
> 
> However, if you do a search such as *lucas-sp *did in post 638, you find the phrase is regularly used in the same contexts and with the same meaning as 'think coming'.
> There must be a reason why that is so.



I've both read the excellent summary of this topic, as well as that most interesting post of lucas-sp to which you referred. Indeed, I only got one 'wrong' and the one I did, another poster correctly identified it would more than likely be that one. It is not so much, for me, at least, the issue of which is more commonly used or which came first, it is the fact that both exist. Like the many and varied and rich synonyms in English, no one means exactly the same, hence their individual being, and I think more cognisance of the creativity of English and our great intuitiveness in terms of language use and development are just as valid areas to look at in relation to a topic such as this one. This colloquial use of 'think' as a noun, for example, is an immense linguistic leap of pure imagination, quite audacious, really, yet we take it for granted.


----------



## PaulQ

Cliffyboy said:


> Yes, I know, but saying it is a noun in the colloquial sense, does not alter the fact that grammatically it is not.


Yes it is. 





> It is perfectly reasonable to argue that authoritative dictionaries, some of which I own and consult, have been 'forced', as it were, into allowing and accepting 'think' as a noun,


No, this is not reasonable at all - dictionaries *record *what has happened, they do not create rules and nobody "forces" them to do anything. I'm sure that you do not want a list of words that were 'forced' into dictionaries by Shakespeare  





> simply because of this usage.


What better reason to justify a dictionary entry than by usage? 





> Even if it is the case that the 'think' came before 'thing', it is still an assumption,


Yes, but it is a far better assumption than any other1. 





> Wouldn't it be reasonable to argue, or just think, for that matter, that other words containing those sounds would be open to some similar corruption?


Yes, it would be reasonable and they exist - not necessarily with those sounds but through misperceptions.

1 I am reminded of, “All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.” Douglas Adams, "The Salmon of Doubt."


----------



## Cliffyboy

wandle said:


> Well, if the Oxford English Dictionary says it is a noun (informal) that means that it is a noun grammatically in that sphere of use.
> 
> That not only could but does regularly happen.
> It is a recognised phenomenon of language change that pronunciation tends to shift from letter-combinations relatively harder to pronounce towards combinations that are easier to pronounce. Scholars have recorded changes of this kind across many languages.
> However, they have found no such tendency to change from combinations easier to pronounce towards those that are harder to pronounce.



I do know that words containing similar sounds are open to such corruption, but I was asking for something more specific regarding the 'k' and 'g' sounds. King and kink and sing and sink, are mighty close to thing and think. Maybe young children might confuse them, I suppose.

The OED explanation: (informal) that 'it is a noun grammatically in that sphere of use' , simply refers to its being a colloquialism. But irrespective of that, the word 'think' as a part of speech, is not a noun.


----------



## cyberpedant

Cliffyboy said:


> Yes, I know, but saying it is a noun in the colloquial sense, does not alter the fact that grammatically it is not.



Do you have any evidence for this hypothesis?



> It is perfectly reasonable to argue that authoritative dictionaries, some of which I own and consult, have been 'forced', as it were, into allowing and accepting 'think' as a noun, *simply because of this usage*.



This is exactly what modern (and some older) _descriptive _dictionaries do: they describe *usage*.



> I personally do not even accept the view that the 'k' and 'g' sounds are that close.



Again, what is your evidence? The overwhelming consensus among phoneticians is that these sounds are both "lingua-velar consonants" whose only difference is voicing. I'd be happy, although amazed, to see another description.
Click for evidence: http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/#



> Wouldn't it be reasonable to argue, or just think, for that matter, that other words containing those sounds would be open to some similar corruption?



Yes it would, and I wouldn't be surprised to find some. One pair that immediately comes to mind is "ring<>rink." We're not allowed to make lists, but I'll bet that others here can supply single examples.


----------



## Chasint

A hundred and forty years or so of the noun "think" is good enough for me. An ngram search for "to have a think" reveals it has been around since the 1870s at least.  "Another think" has an even more venerable history.
http://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...00&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=


----------



## wandle

If the OED's definition of 'think' as 'noun (informal)' does not mean that it is a noun as part of speech, then what good are words?


Cliffyboy said:


> King and kink and sing and sink, are mighty close to thing and think.


It is not simply that 'think' and 'thing' might be confused.

The point is that the combination 'think coming' is a little harder to pronounce than the combination 'thing coming'.
That is because in 'think coming' there are two 'k' sounds together, whereas in 'thing coming' there is only one.

Therefore, by the principle explained above, there will be a constant tendency for pronunciation to shift from 'think coming' to 'thing coming', but not the other way. It shifts from harder to easier, not vice versa.


----------



## cyberpedant

OED:
1. a.1.a An act of (continued) thinking; a meditation. 

*1834 *Tait's Mag. I. 426/1 We lie lown yonder‥and have time for our ain think.


----------



## Cliffyboy

PaulQ

1. Think is a verb, in terms of parts of speech.

2. But I think it is reasonable, in that use and development of language well preceded them, centuries of usage before Johnson came to write the first. Of course they aren't 'forced' into anything, which is why I qualified it, but Shakespeare certainly 'forced' them into accepting his linguistic genius.

3. Who's arguing against it?

4. Only subjectively - seriously, who on earth really knows?

5. I specifically referred, though, to words containing those sounds.


----------



## Cliffyboy

1. I don't need any - think is a verb.

2. Yes, I know. I own an excellent Longmans' Dictionary that does just that, especially aimed towards students learning English as a Second/Foreign Language. I tell them to make it their bible.

3. That 'overwhelming consensus', however, does not prove that that, therefore, is the reason for the two words being used, and I also did say: 'that close'. I am aware of the consonantal similarities.

4. I also gave a few myself, though I'm not aware of ring and rink being particularly open to such corruption, but even having said that, it's noticeable and revealing that in your example both are nouns. Try a noun and a verb. Or are you going to argue that you were using 'ring' as the verb?


----------



## Cliffyboy

Biffo said:


> A hundred and forty years or so of the noun "think" is good enough for me. An ngram search for "to have a think" reveals it has been around since the 1870s at least.  "Another think" has an even more venerable history.
> http://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...00&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=



I wouldn't agree that the expression: 'to have a think', or something similar, is using 'think' as a noun. It well suggests the act of thinking, and is still action and doing, rather than an is, but 'during that think, I'll have some thoughts.'


----------



## Cliffyboy

wandle said:


> If the OED's definition of 'think' as 'noun (informal)' does not mean that it is a noun as part of speech, then what good are words?
> 
> It is not simply that 'think' and 'thing' might be confused.
> 
> The point is that the combination 'think coming' is a little harder to pronounce than the combination 'thing coming'.
> That is because in 'think coming' there are two 'k' sounds together, whereas in 'thing coming' there is only one.
> 
> Therefore, by the principle explained above, there will be a constant tendency for pronunciation to shift from 'think coming' to 'thing coming', but not the other way. It shifts from harder to easier, not vice versa.



wandle

I understand this and I am not for one minute denying it's a possible explanation. I can't accept that there is any way both 'k' sounds are produced, but would argue that the 'k' in 'think' takes precedence over the hard 'c' in 'coming'. 

But I do find this explanation for the development of the two expressions unimaginative and a little facile.


----------



## Chasint

Cliffyboy said:


> I wouldn't agree that the expression: 'to have a think', or something similar, is using 'think' as a noun. It well suggests the act of thinking, and is still action and doing, rather than an is, but 'during that think, I'll have some thoughts.'


Well then I'm afraid you don't have a basic grasp of English grammar. 

*Another example of a noun formed from a verb.*
"Would you like to have the first *go*?"
"He is always on the *go*."

Just because there is an implied action does not make a noun into a verb.


----------



## lucas-sp

First off, "think" is a noun. And arguing that it isn't just is not productive.





Cliffyboy said:


> If the horrible 'Everythink is going wrong' is a corruption, then clearly 'You've got another thing coming' isn't. Surely *it has obtained currency because it also makes sense*?


This is also a bit backwards, in my opinion. _The sentence makes sense because it has obtained currency_. We "understand" it because we know how it's been used. In this thread, we're trying to reason from the _components_ of the phrase to generate the meaning of the whole phrase, but that's never how this works - we encounter the whole phrase in use in the world, and only then begin to break it down into its individual words. (Again, the phrase "to have another thing/k coming" has _nothing to do with_​ the individual words "another," "thing/k," "coming," etc.; the _phrase itself_ is a semantic unit distinct from the semantic units that constitute it.)

Believe it or not, the pronunciation, spelling, and meaning of many words in English have changed over time! For instance, vowels shifted dramatically. Spellings have changed over time. Some semantic units have multiple pronunciations - "schedule" comes to mind. Does hard-k-skedule mean something different than soft-sh-shedule? No, and they're used interchangeably.

This is just an example of the same thing happening, but in a larger unit made up of multiple words (just as a word is made up of multiple letters). Don't get confused.

In other words, people who say "another thing coming" are using a variant pronunciation of one phrase ("another thing/k coming"). The same goes for people who say "another think coming." They are both acceptable, interchangeable, and identical in meaning.


----------



## JulianStuart

It does not matter what we label "think" in terms of "part of speech".

"The Semantics of Grammar" By Anna Wierzbicka.  This book is one of those included in the citations from an Ngram search for "have a think".  There is a fascinating chapter entitled "Why can you have a drink when you can't have an eat?" - assessing the use of "have a V" where the V is a bare infinitive in the construction (to us non-syntacticians, X the object of "to have an X" is normally understood as a noun).  Regardless of its label (that also is discussed), there are many verbs that fit the pattern and many that don't (have a walk, but not have a speak, etc.). Thus, the use of "have a think" is perfectly acceptable if "to have a swim", "to have a go" "to have a lie-down" "to have a look (for)" etc are acceptable.

Ultimately, to say "think is not a noun, therefore the thing version has merit simply because thing is a noun" becomes vacuous*.


(*Please explain to me - did I use that word correctly.  I'm so sorry, that should be a new thread, I think)


Here is a link to the citation in Google books - not sure it will work for everyone.


----------



## wandle

This thread seems to me a good demonstration that people do understand phrases in terms of their component words, and words in terms of their component elements.

There is no doubt that a phrase can have a meaning as a unit, but that is no reason to deny that a word can have a meaning as a unit, or that a prefix or a verb termination can have a distinct meaning which we readily understand and bear in mind when using it.

 It makes a real difference in pronunciation, meaning and coherence whether we say 'think' or 'thing'.


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> ...(Again, the phrase "to have another thing/k coming" has _nothing to do with_​ the individual words "another," "thing/k," "coming," etc.; the _phrase itself_ is a semantic unit distinct from the semantic units that constitute it.)...


You repeat this catechism but don't accept that it might not be true.

A. It is possible that they are two very similar expressions used in very similar circumstances (even identical circumstances) but that does not prevent them having a different nuance, e.g. "thing" threatening and "think" intellectual. The disagreements on this thread prove to me that the "semantic unit" you talk of means different thing to different people.

B. You underestimate the degree to which many people are acutely aware of the individual words they utter. Admittedly there are many who think very little about the language they use.

Meaning and language use sit on a very wide spectrum of comprehension. You seem to want to place unnecessarily strict and personal limits.

*(Cross-posted with wandle)*


----------



## lucas-sp

wandle said:


> This thread seems to me a good demonstration that people do understand phrases in terms of their component words, and words in terms of their component elements. It makes a real difference in pronunciation, meaning and coherence whether we say 'think' or 'thing'.


This thread seems to me a good demonstration that people *think* that they understand phrases in terms of their component words.

People *think* that they understand words by seeing/hearing the letters that form those words in order (from right to left, from start to finish). People *think* that they understand sentences by seeing/hearing the words that form those sentences in order (from right to left, from start to finish). People *think* that meanings of wholes are constructed from meanings of component parts (particularly analytic philosophers), and that wholes can be decomposed into the parts that constitute them without any change or deformation in meaning.

Linguistic science has proven that all of these common-sense conceptions about how "understanding" works are false. Alluring, yes, and deeply _human_, but false.

I still have seen no convincing example of an actual situation of language use in which it makes a difference whether the phrase is spelled with a g or a k. The only context I can think of when there is a difference is this thread, which is a good and fine language-game in itself but is not representative of the way the words are used.


----------



## timpeac

To claim "think" is not a noun here is such a silly assertion that I think we're feeding the trolls here.


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> ...Linguistic science has proven that all of these common-sense conceptions about how "understanding" works are false. Alluring, yes, and deeply _human_, but false...


I'd like to see this proof. Where is it written down?

Let's look at it this way. When, as a child, we first hear or read an unfamiliar expression, we tackle it word by word. Then we make sense of it in the current context. Eventually the words may merge into a semantic unit. However the sense that we as individuals make is influenced by our life experience up to that point. Someone who has experienced threats and hears unspecified "thing" may interpret it as a threat. Someone who hears "think" as a novel and amusing word may see the expression as amusing for the rest of their lives.


----------



## wandle

lucas-sp said:


> People *think* that they understand words by seeing/hearing the letters that form those words in order (from right to left, from start to finish). People *think* that they understand sentences by seeing/hearing the words that form those sentences in order (from right to left, from start to finish). People *think* that meanings of wholes are constructed from meanings of component parts (particularly analytic philosophers), and that wholes can be decomposed into the parts that constitute them without any change or deformation in meaning.
> 
> Linguistic science has proven that all of these common-sense conceptions about how "understanding" works are false. Alluring, yes, and deeply human, but false.


Here you are knocking down a lot of propositions which nobody in this thread has put up.


> I still have seen no convincing example of an actual situation of language use in which it makes a difference whether the phrase is spelled with a g or a k. The only context I can think of when there is a difference is this thread, which is a good and fine language-game in itself but is not representative of the way the words are used.


'Thing' is a word far wider in sense and range than 'think' is when used as a noun. All the problems this generates for the sense of the phrase have been well aired already. The fact that 'thing coming' is in practice used in contexts typical for 'think coming' leads to the conclusions offered in post 670, 671 and elsewhere.


----------



## Loob

I agree with lucas. 

It's important, I think, to remember that this expression belongs primarily to the world of parent-child interaction.  Unlike Biffo, I'd say that children learning to speak process much of what they hear in clusters or streams.  A possible parallel (though not an exact one): I remember being astonished when I learnt that the /v/ in "I would've gone" represented "have" not "of". But even when I was convinced the /v/ was "of", I understood the whole phrase perfectly - and was perfectly capable of using it.


----------



## Chasint

Loob said:


> I agree with lucas.
> 
> It's important, I think, to remember that this expression belongs primarily to the world of parent-child interaction.  Unlike Biffo, I'd say that children leaning to speak process much of what they hear in clusters or streams, only later breaking the clusters down into individual words.  A possible parallel (though not an exact one): I remember being astonished when I learnt that the /v/ in "I would've gone" represented "have" not "of". But even when I was convinced the /v/ was "of", I understood the whole phrase perfectly - and was perfectly capable of using it.


Are you saying that all children on hearing the phrase "If you think that, you have another thingk coming" process it in precisely the same way and come up with precisely the same meaning regardless of any of the words it contains? This is like saying, "Look, there's a horse in that field!" means exactly the same as "Look there's a cow in that field!" to a child.

For very young children that may be the case if they haven't yet distinguished between quadrupeds. However there is a constant revision of meaning going on in a child's language before "semantic units" are solidified.


----------



## Loob

Biffo said:


> Are you saying that all children on hearing the phrase "If you think that, you have another thingk coming" process it in precisely the same way and come up with precisely the same meaning regardless of any of the words it contains?


Yes, I think that's exactly what I'm saying.  The child knows what the parent means, regardless of how the child breaks up the phrase into individual words.


----------



## lucas-sp

Biffo said:


> When, as a child, we first hear or read an unfamiliar expression, we tackle it word by word. Then we make sense of it in the current context. Eventually the words may merge into a semantic unit.


This is another assumption. We _think_ we learn new expressions/understand new phrases by going through them word by word. But this is not necessarily correct, and has some major problems. (See the opening of Wittgenstein's _Philosophical Investigations _for more on this.)

I think Loob is spot-on. When we "first" encounter this phrase, we hear it _as a whole_ and we get the sense of rebuke/rebuff/warning implicit in it. That's easily communicated by tone of voice, facial expression, and, of course, understanding the situation as a whole in which the phrase is said. Only later do we go through and seek to _justify_ the meaning/use of the phrase - which we already have understood perfectly well - by "building it up" from the component parts of the phrase.

If you're really interested in challenges to the "common-sense" theory of understanding, you might look at Saussure (obviously), Shannon and Weiner's _Mathematical Theory of Communication_, Lacan's early seminars, and all the work done on "detection errors" in psychology which shows that the fundamental units of understanding are often larger than we assume them to be (larger than letters in a word, larger than words in a sentence, etc.).

And, _pace_ wandle, the assumption that meaning is decomposable and follows a linear logic is fundamental to many, if not all, of the arguments - thing-ist and think-ist - that say that one spelling has a different "meaning" from the other, whether or not they assign a value to this difference.


----------



## Chasint

Loob said:


> Yes, I think that's exactly what I'm saying.  The child knows what the parent means, regardless of how he/she breaks up the phrase into individual words.


Then we must disagree. I see your point of view as grossly simplistic. You don't even take into account the emotion that may be conveyed by different parents when they say such a phrase. Nor do you take into account the age and level of linguistic competence of individual children.

To say that the same phrase means the same to everyone is to deny most of the contributions to this thread as well as a century of psychological findings.


----------



## lucas-sp

Biffo said:


> To say that the same phrase means the same to everyone...


That's certainly not what Loob is saying. She's saying that understanding the _particular_ meaning of a _particular _use of the phrase does not depend on parsing the meaning of the specific words in the phrase.

And, obviously, one can use this phrase in many different ways in many different contexts _without having considered its "logic_."

(A child can have a very nuanced understanding of "could-have/of" and "should-have/of," being able to use those phrases in a wide variety of contexts and demonstrating a deep understanding of how and what the phrases mean, without _logically_ having parsed them into the "correct" constituent parts.)


----------



## wandle

Loob said:


> I'd say that children leaning to speak process much of what they hear in clusters or streams.


This may be the case, but it does not cancel the meaning or importance of individual words or parts of words.


> A possible parallel (though not an exact one): I remember being astonished when I learnt that the /v/ in "I would've gone" represented "have" not "of". But even when I was convinced the /v/ was "of", I understood the whole phrase perfectly - and was perfectly capable of using it.


I remember the same discovery, which showed me that although I had been using it, I had not been using it perfectly.
In fact, I felt distinctly embarrassed.
Realising the logic of 'have' came with immediate conviction and showed me just how far adrift my understanding had been.


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> That's certainly not what Loob is saying. She's saying that understanding the _particular_ meaning of a _particular _use of the phrase does not depend on parsing the meaning of the specific words in the phrase.
> 
> And, obviously, one can use this phrase in many different ways in many different contexts _without having considered its "logic_."
> 
> (A child can have a very nuanced understanding of "could-have/of" and "should-have/of," being able to use those phrases in a wide variety of contexts and demonstrating a deep understanding of how and what the phrases mean, without _logically_ having parsed them into the "correct" constituent parts.)


Let me try again:

Under some theories children learn frames or templates.

Example

"The dog is brown/black/white"  I refuse to believe that a child could maintain a multiplicity of independent semantic units "The dog is brown" "The dog is black" etc.  If that were the case it would put an intolerable load on our memories. 

The word 'thing' is about as open-ended as a word can be. The child can put any meaning into it at all. What is placed there will depend on the child's imagination, previous punishments and the tone of voice of the speaker.

The word 'think' has a much more limited scope for interpretation.

If you read this thread you will find that thinkists have a pretty consistent idea of what a "think" is. Thingists on the other hand vary widely on what the "thing" actually refers to.


----------



## lucas-sp

But again you are looking (wrongly) at the (deeply meaningful) difference between the words "think" and "thing."

You should be looking at the (inexistent or unimportant) difference between the phrases "to have another think coming" and "to have another thing coming."

In any instance _when the phrase is used_ both a think-ist and a thing-ist would have _the same understanding _of what the meaning of _the phrase_​ would be.


----------



## Loob

_(Response to post 716)_

Well, we'll just have to agree to differ, Biffo.  My reading of this thread is that people who see the phrase as "you've got another thing coming" interpret the phrase in exactly the same way as those who see it as "you've got another think coming".

By the way - I send Big Hugs to the infant wandle.  I was a bolshy child: it took me a _long_ time to believe my mother when she told me the /v/ in "I would've gone" represented "have".


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> But again you are looking (wrongly) at the (deeply meaningful) difference between the words "think" and "thing."
> 
> You should be looking at the (inexistent or unimportant) difference between the phrases "to have another think coming" and "to have another thing coming."
> 
> In any instance _when the phrase is used_ both a think-ist and a thing-ist would have _the same understanding _of what the meaning of _the phrase_​ would be.


"Wrongly" and "should" are words of politicians and religious folk  not of those pursuing an academic discussion.

Your second sentence "You should be looking..." is actually contentless. You are telling me to look at something you say doesn't exist.

Your final sentence is merely a repetition of your firmly held view. You give no new argument to support it, nor do you deconstruct my argument to prove me wrong.

Mere contradiction is not sufficient for an intelligent discussion.


----------



## Chasint

Loob said:


> _(Response to post 716)_
> 
> Well, we'll just have to agree to differ, Biffo.  My reading of this thread is that people who see the phrase as "you've got another thing coming" interpret the phrase in exactly the same way as those who see it as "you've got another think coming"...


The difference between this statement and mine is that you merely repeat your argument as though repetition makes it stronger. I, on the other hand, at least try to disprove what the other person is saying by *reading their argument* first.

I get the sense that you haven't read anything I've said in detail. Maybe you were treating it as one big semantic unit where the individual words mean nothing


----------



## wandle

lucas-sp said:


> In any instance _when the phrase is used_ both a think-ist and a thing-ist would have _the same understanding _of what the meaning of _the phrase_​ would be.


Not to judge by the plethora of posts in this thread arguing for very different meanings.
Regardless of what meaning one prefers, the differences of opinion are very striking.


----------



## cyberpedant

In reply to my prior request for evidence [post 692]:


Cliffyboy said:


> 1. I don't need any - think is a verb.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun


> In English, nouns are those words which can occur with articles and attributive adjectives and can function as the head of a noun phrase.
> Nouns are described as words that refer to a _person_, _place_, _thing_, _event_, _substance_, _quality_, _quantity_, etc. However this type of definition has been criticized by contemporary linguists as being uninformative.[6]
> Linguists often prefer to define nouns (and other lexical categories) in terms of their formal properties. These include morphological information, such as what prefixes or suffixes they take, and also their syntax – how they combine with other words and expressions of particular types.


 

 The fact that the word “think” can be preceded by determiners like “a” and “another” is sufficient evidence for the fact that (under these and other similar circumstances) “think” is, indeed incontrovertibly, a noun.


 If you continue to insist that no evidence is necessary to support your contention, there's no further point in discussing it.
 "That which can be asserted without evidence _can be dismissed without evidence_."—C. Hitchens
 The facts speak for themselves.



> 4. I also gave a few myself, though I'm not aware of ring and rink being particularly open to such corruption, but even having said that, it's noticeable and revealing that in your example both are nouns. Try a noun and a verb. Or are you going to argue that you were using 'ring' as the verb?



Revealing of precisely what? I am not merely "arguing," I am stating as incontrovertible fact that “ring”—what bells do, and “rink”—[OED: Hence rink v. intr., to skate on a rink; also trans.] are accepted as both nouns and verbs by our most authoritative English dictionary.


----------



## Phil-Olly

Biffo said:


> I'd like to see this proof. Where is it written down?
> 
> Let's look at it this way. When, as a child, we first hear or read an unfamiliar expression, we tackle it word by word. Then we make sense of it in the current context. Eventually the words may merge into a semantic unit. However the sense that we as individuals make is influenced by our life experience up to that point. Someone who has experienced threats and hears unspecified "thing" may interpret it as a threat. Someone who hears "think" as a novel and amusing word may see the expression as amusing for the rest of their lives.



I think it's easy tocome up with many examples of this.  The one that springs to my mindis being taken aback to discover that “I can't help it” didn'tmean the same thing as “It's not my fault” - when I had used theformer in my defence and was told summarily “Yes you can!” (i.e... do something about it)


And everyone rattlesoff phrases like “See you later” (today?  Never?) and “Noproblem!” (Did I ever suggest that this should be problematic?)because we are concerned only with the semantic, commonlyacknowledged meaning of the phrase, rather than its literal meaning.


----------



## PaulQ

In this post, there is the beginnings of a similar lengthy thread 





Humpty Doubty said:


> Hi everybody,
> 
> 
> I've noticed that some people in mathematical proofs, before an assumption which narrows the premise to some special case, write "without loss of generosity" instead of "without loss of generality". Is this a hilarious misspelling, maybe due to some misleading automatic spell checker, or does it make sense?
> (If you look for "without loss of generosity" in google books you will find 118 results)
> 
> 
> Thank you!


We can see that the mathematicians who mistakenly write 'generosity' will give rise to a set who use this term as if it were correct.


After sufficient time, there will be those who find 'generality' to be completely wrong and 'generosity' will be justified in some way.


----------



## mplsray

wandle said:


> Well, if the Oxford English Dictionary says it is a noun (informal) that means that it is a noun grammatically in that sphere of use.
> 
> That not only could but does regularly happen.
> It is a recognised phenomenon of language change that pronunciation tends to shift from letter-combinations relatively harder to pronounce towards combinations that are easier to pronounce. Scholars have recorded changes of this kind across many languages.
> However, they have found no such tendency to change from combinations easier to pronounce towards those that are harder to pronounce. It is a one-way trend, like entropy, of which it is in fact a form.



It does happen, however, as when the /ft/ in _often_ replaced /f/ for some speakers. It took a non-phonetic driver to make it so, however, in this case the spelling of the word. In the case of a hypothesized "you've got another thing coming" change to "you've got another think coming," the driver could be a dissatisfaction with the existing idiom combined with a knowledge that _think_ is sometimes used as a noun and a desire to make the idiom "make more sense." It wouldn't be the first time an idiom has been re-analyzed, of course.

While I am not persuaded that the _thing_ version came first, it is certainly possible that the _think_ version has been independently reinvented based upon the _thing_ version by individuals who had no previous knowledge of the _think_ version and who were influenced by the drivers of change I mentioned above rather than any knowledge of the history of the expression.

(Other examples of more difficult pronunciations developing from easier pronunciations, for reasons unknown to me: French _Luc /lyk/_ is more difficult to say than the first syllable of Latin or Greek _Lucas/Loukas_ /luk/ and the stressed _pol_ in _police_ in African-American Vernacular English takes more effort to say than the unstressed syllable in standard dialects of English.)


----------



## Cliffyboy

cyberpedant said:


> In reply to my prior request for evidence [post 692]:
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the word “think” can be preceded by determiners like “a” and “another” is sufficient evidence for the fact that (under these and other similar circumstances) “think” is, indeed incontrovertibly, a noun.
> 
> 
> If you continue to insist that no evidence is necessary to support your contention, there's no further point in discussing it.
> "That which can be asserted without evidence, _can be dismissed without evidence_."—C. Hitchens
> The facts speak for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Revealing of precisely what? I am not merely "arguing," I am stating as incontrovertible fact that “ring”—what bells do, and “rink”—[OED: Hence rink v. intr., to skate on a rink; also trans.] are accepted as both nouns and verbs by our most authoritative English dictionary.



I don't need quotations from so-called learned authorities - they cut no ice with me, and neither is evidence required to show that we classify under parts of speech, 'think' as a verb. Neither do I require a lesson in the usage of 'think', as a noun. The fact that I can say something like: 'I am going off to have a think', can seem as if it is a noun, similar in a way to how a gerund functions, although without the 'ing'. I'd maintain, however, that that usage could still qualify as a verb, as in the 'act of thinking'. Stating that because 'think' can be preceded by 'a' or 'another', and so on, as if it 'proves' 'think' is a noun, is simply pointing to the flexibility of language, and the fact that strict classifications are not possible,  particularly in terms of common and daily usage.

I assumed you were referring to 'ring' as a noun, not a verb. Are you really suggesting that 'ring' as a verb and 'rink' as a noun could be confused/corrupted? Is there a context to support that?


----------



## Cliffyboy

lucas-sp said:


> First off, "think" is a noun. And arguing that it isn't just is not productive.This is also a bit backwards, in my opinion. _The sentence makes sense because it has obtained currency_. We "understand" it because we know how it's been used. In this thread, we're trying to reason from the _components_ of the phrase to generate the meaning of the whole phrase, but that's never how this works - we encounter the whole phrase in use in the world, and only then begin to break it down into its individual words. (Again, the phrase "to have another thing/k coming" has _nothing to do with_​ the individual words "another," "thing/k," "coming," etc.; the _phrase itself_ is a semantic unit distinct from the semantic units that constitute it.)
> 
> Believe it or not, the pronunciation, spelling, and meaning of many words in English have changed over time! For instance, vowels shifted dramatically. Spellings have changed over time. Some semantic units have multiple pronunciations - "schedule" comes to mind. Does hard-k-skedule mean something different than soft-sh-shedule? No, and they're used interchangeably.
> 
> This is just an example of the same thing happening, but in a larger unit made up of multiple words (just as a word is made up of multiple letters). Don't get confused.
> 
> In other words, people who say "another thing coming" are using a variant pronunciation of one phrase ("another thing/k coming"). The same goes for people who say "another think coming." They are both acceptable, interchangeable, and identical in meaning.



I assure you, lucas-sp, that I am not at all confused. I do fully agree with you regarding usage, and I think that with language, we are in the position of almost trying to work out the cause well after the effects have been entrenched into our subconscious. In terms of this thread, I simply do not accept that the two terms necessarily arose through the corruption of sound and pronunciation - that is surely no big deal, despite one or two responses I have elicited. It's most ironic that language is not dictatorial, given some flak I have received.

I also just cannot agree that the two terms are identical in meaning. If they were, we would either only have one or the other would fall into disuse.

I am fully cognisant of the fact that language changes over time - it is one of the greatest aspects of it and points, in my opinion, to the great intuitiveness of our minds. The word 'apron' is a very interesting example. The fact that the article was originally called a 'napron' is fascinating, I think.


----------



## PaulQ

Cliffyboy said:


> I also just cannot agree that the two terms are identical in meaning. If they were, we would either only have one or the other would fall into disuse.


Could you give an example that shows this alleged difference?


----------



## JulianStuart

Cliffyboy said:


> I don't need quotations from so-called learned authorities - they cut no ice with me, and neither is evidence required to show that we classify under parts of speech, 'think' as a verb. Neither do I require a lesson in the usage of 'think', as a noun. The fact that *I can say something like: 'I am going off to have a think'*, can seem as if it is a noun, similar in a way to how a gerund functions, although without the 'ing'. I'd maintain, however, that that usage could still qualify as a verb, as in the 'act of thinking'. Stating that because 'think' can be preceded by 'a' or 'another', and so on, as if it 'proves' 'think' is a noun, is simply pointing to the flexibility of language, and the fact that strict classifications are not possible,  particularly in terms of common and daily usage.


 Some have used the "it's not a noun" card as an invalidation of the think version. However, if _you_ can say "I am going off to  have a think", then your post above is quibbling solely over what part of speech  _think_ should be called in the phrase but not rejecting the phrase as unacceptable. Is that aspect still relevant to the thread at hand? .  

I'm going to have a swim and then a lie-down before _I _have a drink and another think about this thread.


----------



## Cliffyboy

PaulQ said:


> Could you give an example that shows this alleged difference?



Why do I need to, since both depend upon the milieu and context of situation, including the relationships between the participants, and their characters, and so on? However, let's take a scenario that I'm pretty sure as a teacher I could have experienced over the years, or something similar. I'm having a go at a student, say, who's either failed to hand in an important assignment or missed an in-class one. He is an Upper School student and the work missed was important in his final grading and so on. I can well imagine saying something like: 'If you think this can be just ignored, you've got another thing coming. No, I'll go further: If you think this can be ignored, you've got another think coming.' That would make perfect sense to me, and the student, and would indicate that for me, at least, I place 'think' hierarchically above 'thing'. That's not to say I would never use 'thing', just simply my view of which I regard as having the stronger effect, so that, as I've already alluded to, I see intent and purpose as equally a valid explanation for the development of the two versions. Again, it is just no big deal to argue thus. As I've already said, although none of those voicing opposition to my stance have referred to it, despite the richness of English synonyms, no two are absolutely identical, and I don't see an inherent difference between that fact and these two synonymous terms.


----------



## Cliffyboy

JulianStuart said:


> Some have used the "it's not a noun" card as an invalidation of the think version. However, if _you_ can say "I am going off to  have a think", then your post above is quibbling solely over what part of speech  _think_ should be called in the phrase but not rejecting the phrase as unacceptable. Is that aspect still relevant to the thread at hand? .
> 
> I'm going to have a swim and then a lie-down before _I _have a drink and another think about this thread.



But I haven't, far from it, in fact. The 'think' version is perfectly acceptable, and lets us see the marvelous variety that is English. But if we continually say that 'think' is a noun, it kind of trivialises and makes easy the analysis such as this one, rather than pointing to the wonderfully imaginative and intuitive leaps that we make in actual usage. You are putting words directly into my mouth - I am not 'quibbling' over anything. It is a simple fact that in terms of the nine parts of speech, the word 'think' is classified as a verb. That's not rocket science. In your example of your going to have a swim, since 'swim' can function as both a noun and a verb, it isn't quite the analogy with 'think' that it seems.


----------



## PaulQ

Cliffyboy said:


> ...I can well imagine saying something like: 'If you think this can be just ignored, you've got another thing coming. No, I'll go further: If you think this can be ignored, you've got another think coming.' That would make perfect sense to me, and the student,


You seem to assume, without evidence, that (a) the student is not reacting to your tone of voice and (b) you presume that the student, unlike me and others here, can tell the difference between the two - with all respect, and knowing what students are like - he may just think you mad.





> that the  and would indicate that for me, at least, I place 'think' hierarchically above 'thing'.


But this is entirely subjective - a reversal of the phrases would reverse the hierarchy  It is in the order in which they are said, not their meaning. 





> Again, it is just no big deal to argue thus.


I disagree - earlier in this thread (and who has read it all?) it is agreed, with some authoritative support, that "another *think *coming" is the earlier and that *thing *is a mishearing followed by repetition and some popularisation. 





> As I've already said, although none of those voicing opposition to my stance have referred to it, despite the richness of English synonyms, no two are absolutely identical, and I don't see an inherent difference between that fact and these two synonymous terms.


If it is a simple mishearing (either way) then both are synonymous and to all intents and purposes, identical. It is as if we had dressed identical twins in blue and now one of them were in red - they would, nevertheless, be identical twins.


----------



## JulianStuart

Cliffyboy said:


> In your example of your going to have a swim, since 'swim' can function as both a noun and a verb, it isn't quite the analogy with 'think' that it seems.


So I can have a drink and a swim, and both are nouns, but think is not a noun when I have *one*.  The lawyers would call such rigidity "arbitrary and capricious" and Mr Spock would say "Not logical, Captain".


----------



## Cliffyboy

PaulQ said:


> You seem to assume, without evidence, that (a) the student is not reacting to your tone of voice and (b) you presume that the student, unlike me and others here, can tell the difference between the two - with all respect, and knowing what students are like - he may just think you mad.But this is entirely subjective - a reversal of the phrases would reverse the hierarchy  It is in the order in which they are said, not their meaning. I disagree - earlier in this thread (and who has read it all?) it is agreed, with some authoritative support, that "another *think *coming" is the earlier and that *thing *is a mishearing followed by repetition and some popularisation. If it is a simple mishearing (either way) then both are synonymous and to all intents and purposes, identical. It is as if we had dressed identical twins in blue and now one of them were in red - they would, nevertheless, be identical twins.



I'm not assuming anything, any more than any one else does when they use language, and, indeed, as with your reply here. The student may well ignore my words completely, and I've no illusions about the desired effects and actual effects of a great deal of verbal communication throughout the globe, and on a daily basis at that. I would maintain, however, that the student would be an expert linguist and fully aware of the fact that I'd placed 'think' above 'thing' in my utterances, whether he ignored the substance or not. The fact that it is subjective, makes the idea that one person's view is more correct than another's, at best silly, and at worst, dictatorial, and I would strongly maintain that it is no big deal. Your identical twin analogy depends for its effect on their both being identical in the first place. This I do not concede, in terms of 'thing' preceding 'think', or vice versa. Really, who on earth is to say with any real degree of certainty? And I'm sure you've heard that appeals to authority do not of themselves give any more credence to a position or argument. They might make the adherents feel better but that's as far as it goes. The sound and pronunciation is, yes, plausible enough, though I don't personally see 'think' and 'thing' as being that close, but, again, there's no way of knowing that people didn't simply absorb into their subconscious the two terms because they made a sense. I much prefer the theory that the use of 'think' as a noun, when it is a verb, illustrates the wonderful diversity and imagination of language and our intuitive and intelligent use of it. Why isn't that view just as plausible? After all, the creation of language in the first place is miraculous.


----------



## Cliffyboy

JulianStuart said:


> So I can have a drink and a swim, and both are nouns, but think is not a noun when I have *one*.  The lawyers would call such rigidity "arbitrary and capricious" and Mr Spock would say "Not logical, Captain".



No, au contraire, 'think' can be a noun when you have one, just as it can be when I have one. The fact that 'think' is a verb, does not alter that reality one iota. Given that the law, sir, is an ass, quoting what lawyers might term this, hardly cuts the mustard, and while Mr. Spock might be conditioned thus, let's not forget that Spock was not human.


----------



## JulianStuart

Cliffyboy said:


> No, au contraire, *'think' can be a noun when you have one*, just as it can be when I have one*. The fact that 'think' is a verb, does not alter that reality one iota*. Given that the law, sir, is an ass, quoting what lawyers might term this, hardly cuts the mustard, and while Mr. Spock might be conditioned thus, let's not forget that Spock was not human.


     I think you need to make up your mind about whether think can be a noun or not, or use other words to explain what you mean by the two bold phrases above.....  Oohh look, there's a swim


----------



## Cliffyboy

JulianStuart said:


> I think you need to make up your mind about whether think can be a noun or not, or use other words to explain what you mean by the two bold phrases above.....  Oohh look, there's a swim



Why do I? The word 'think' is a verb but sometimes we use it as if it is a noun, and we deem it so because sometimes the content of what we want to communicate takes precedence over the formal grammar. It is this fact that I prefer to focus on as an explanation for the development of the 'think/thing' issue under this thread. I do find the sound and pronunciation explanation prosaic and obvious - why can't it just as well be a flight into the imagination that ironically has brought us language in the first place? Language is a miracle anyway - if it didn't exist, you'd find it incredible. I much prefer the idea that we wanted 'think' as an option because our intuitive sense saw its validity, even to the point of it making a verb function as a noun, in that context.


----------



## JulianStuart

"have a think" has been in print since the 1860s and predates the "got another think coming" - that took off after 1910.  The latter is now more common than the former and is probably the major situation where the word think is used as a noun.  "got another thing coming" does not exist in print until after 1960.
All those are from the Ngram here.


----------



## mplsray

In post 313, *PaulQ* pointed out that the Oxford English Dictionary gives a first cite for "have another thing coming" (in the expression in question) as 1906 (entry "thing, n.1," P15.). The same post shows that the OED dates "have another think coming" to 1898 (entry "think, n." 1.c.).


----------



## Cliffyboy

JulianStuart said:


> "have a think" has been in print since the 1860s and predates the "got another think coming" - that took off after 1910.  The latter is now more common than the former and is probably the major situation where the word think is used as a noun.  "got another thing coming" does not exist in print until after 1960. All those are from the Ngram here.


  I wouldn't have a clue as to which is more common, they are both just examples of the richness of idiomatic and colloquial English.  As I see it, there are two issues at work here.   1. Assuming 'think' was the 'original' one, why 'thing' developed. Yes, it might well be because of the 'corruption' of language, in relation to the sounds. It's not a belief I subscribe to and despite the views of others, I don't see it as being that big a deal. What you say here is interesting enough but tell me, if 'thing' came about because of the sound and pronunciation issue, wouldn't it be a reasonable assumption to make that it followed pretty hot on the heels of the original? Even on your figures regarding print, some fifty years seems to have elapsed before the 'thing' kicked in.   2. That there is no difference at all between them, so that a person can be an either/or user, as it were.   It is with 2 that I most part company because I just do not accept that in English, and not just with this expression, we have totally identical synonyms and synonymous phrases and terms. None of the terms are neutral - they drip with emotive connotations and I can even quite easily visualise the same person using both but to different individuals, based upon their knowledge of those characters, the milieu, the context and so on. I'd take this as a given, personally.


----------



## JulianStuart

One citation (or even several) for "have another thing coming" and zero examples of "got another thing coming" (per thread title, if we are being exact ) in the Ngram database through 1960 seems pretty good support for the notion that the expression started as think.  How it was spoken and how it was heard, particularly outside the world of writing, reading and editing books, are not as easy to assess . 

(My post #648 acknowledges that a couple of early editors had been of the thingist persuasion, clearly in the minority of those editing books back then ; the phonetics posts are quite convincing that a mishearing is not unlikely, but it seems to have been edited by those who came across it before going to press.)


----------



## JulianStuart

Cliffyboy said:


> I wouldn't have a clue as to which is more common, ...


The graphs show the best data available for the frequency of use of the two expressions analysed in a huge database of (millions of) books in English.  Very hard to gainsay or ignore.  I wouldn't have a clue about the use of the two outside the printed book world, other than my own personal experience and that of those posting here.  However, I rather doubt we have a good sampling of those who speak or hear the expressions to make as valid an assessment as the database above.


----------



## lucas-sp

Ahem, ahem, cough-cough-cough. Yes, the Google-Books-ngram tells a very explicit story in this case.

However, the story told by ngrams is _not_ the story told by the OED_ - _the OED (compiled by humans) lists both phrases as emerging almost simultaneously. The story told by ngrams about contemporary usage is _not_ the story told either by COCA or Google News. (Google News has, on two separate occasions, shown that "thing" is more in use than "think" in contemporary English; this is not what the ngrams suggest.)

I just want to suggest again that ngrams are not necessarily representative in this case; I don't know whether this is because the ngram search isn't good at handling multiple words as search terms or because the works scanned into the ngrams database are differently representative. But because the ngram results do not dovetail nicely with results gleaned from other sources in this case, I think we shouldn't be so quick to accept them as absolutely descriptive of what's going on with the language in this case.


----------



## gramman

The two formulations seem effectively the same to me. I should note that I never heard of the _think_ version until I finally decided to open this thread.

In this research, _another think coming_ would seem to have a specific use. But couldn't _another thing coming_ be part of something like: _have/got another thing coming in the mail_ or _have/got another thing coming from Plymouth_? Sorry if that's already been addressed.

I'm so thick that I didn't get the joke about going for a swim until someone referred to it as part of the noun-verb debate. I just cursed JulianStuart for having access to a heated swimming pool, figuring that a Sonoma County resident wouldn't want to crawl around the Bay in February.

I suppose this will be my sole contribution to this prodigious effort to settle a question that has been a matter of concern to so many for such a long time.


----------



## Cliffyboy

JulianStuart said:


> One citation (or even several) for "have another thing coming" and zero examples of "got another thing coming" (per thread title, if we are being exact ) in the Ngram database through 1960 seems pretty good support for the notion that the expression started as think.  How it was spoken and how it was heard, particularly outside the world of writing, reading and editing books, are not as easy to assess .
> 
> (My post #648 acknowledges that a couple of early editors had been of the thingist persuasion, clearly in the minority of those editing books back then ; the phonetics posts are quite convincing that a mishearing is not unlikely, but it seems to have been edited by those who came across it before going to press.)



Interesting, though, as to why, even then, some plumped for the 'thingist' position. There is just no way this can be put down to mishearing, the words carry far too many connotations. In a way, the mishearing theory detracts from the individuality of man and the soul essence of language, to coin a term. To argue or maintain that these two terms arose because of a corruption of 'think/thing', is to deny us as causal, free-thinking agents.


----------



## Cliffyboy

JulianStuart said:


> The graphs show the best data available for the frequency of use of the two expressions analysed in a huge database of (millions of) books in English.  Very hard to gainsay or ignore.  I wouldn't have a clue about the use of the two outside the printed book world, other than my own personal experience and that of those posting here.  However, I rather doubt we have a good sampling of those who speak or hear the expressions to make as valid an assessment as the database above.



But would I to argue that the sheep in 'Animal Farm' bleat unthinkingly their linguistic responses, so that the minority are more valid in their utterances, you would surely reject that in terms of 'think/thing/?


----------



## JulianStuart

lucas-sp said:


> Ahem, ahem, cough-cough-cough. Yes, the Google-Books-ngram tells a very explicit story in this case.
> 
> However, the story told by ngrams is _not_ the story told by the OED_ - _the OED (compiled by humans) lists both phrases as emerging almost simultaneously. The story told by ngrams about contemporary usage is _not_ the story told either by COCA or Google News. (Google News has, on two separate occasions, shown that "thing" is more in use than "think" in contemporary English; this is not what the ngrams suggest.)
> 
> I just want to suggest again that ngrams are not necessarily representative in this case; I don't know whether this is because the ngram search isn't good at handling multiple words as search terms or because the works scanned into the ngrams database are differently representative. But because the ngram results do not dovetail nicely with results gleaned from other sources in this case, I think we shouldn't be so quick to accept them as absolutely descriptive of what's going on with the language in this case.



The mishearing, as I will continue to think of it, did indeed occur quite soon after the original think version*, there is little doubt of that.  The OED citation is not in question. (I think the fact that it was compiled by humans is neither here nor there, in this discussion, although that is in itself an interesting topic for another thread in a separate forum).  

However, if the thing version had been widely used in the early days by those writing, and accepted by those editing, the material in the Google database, it would surely have been found by the search tool, just as it was in the recent books analysed (absent conspiracy theories about thinkists hacking the database and deleting the early thing instances to make their point  ).  Its almost complete absence is the key finding. 

Current use of the two phrases is not in question, and in some searches the new version may be found more often than the original (The Google news searches, as far as I am aware, use the same tools used by the ngram search).  The ngrams from the books are a direct representation of the frequency of the occurrence of the phrases in the books - at least we are unlikely to be misled by scanning errors, with the k and the g being virtually impossible to be interpreted as each other, although either may be misinterpreted and missed by either search.  

I have been very careful in wording the interpretations from the ngrams, restricting them to conclusions on the "printed world", for which the book database is unsurpassed as a representative to survey and draw conclusions from.  It is necessarily somewhat "censored" (in the statistical sense of the word), as are the corpora, but neither in a way that would be capable of excluding one form over the other.  I find it absolutely inconceivable that the database and search tool would produce the results they do if the thing version had been in wide use in the language in the time periods when the data say it wasn't.  Numerical data on how many people were _saying_ which variety, and how many were _hearing_ the one that was actaully uttered compared to the other one that they thought was uttered, remain inaccessible for our purposes.  We are left, therefore, with idiosyncratic views of those participating in this thread, a very poor sampling of the number of people speakng the language, but a vociferous sampling, very much biased, I would venture,  by how the posters first heard the expression.  (As Jmi Hendrix said "Excuse me while I kiss this guy" - a g for a k, no less   - as I misheard early on in my life and about which I was educated many years later)


* for reasons that I believe have been discussed above by the phoneticians.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

Does it really matter which one came first?


----------



## JulianStuart

Beryl from Northallerton said:


> Does it really matter which one came first?



Not really  ( only in patent litigation ).  It's only relevant (in a discussion of the origin) if suggestions are made that one is derived from the other or that they were independently coined etc.  It's not relevant in a discussion of whether they are both in use _today_.


----------



## PaulQ

Cliffyboy said:


> .. I would maintain, however, that the student would be an expert linguist


You are now introducing special conditions to support your hypothesis.





> The fact that it is subjective, makes the idea that one person's view is more correct than another's, at best silly, and at worst, dictatorial


I agree and the authorities are against you. 





> Your identical twin analogy depends for its effect on their both being identical in the first place.


That is why I said “identical”





> This I do not concede, in terms of 'thing' preceding 'think', or vice versa.


Really? They spontaneously and simultaneously arose? 





> Really, who on earth is to say with any real degree of certainty?


I am disappointed at this. To suggest that a well-referenced origin, although not _absolutely _certain, is equal to something that seems to be plucked out of the air. Sir, that is unsustainable.





> And I'm sure you've heard that appeals to authority do not of themselves give any more credence to a position or argument.


Indeed I have, but I would credit myself with understanding what “the fallacy of appeal to authority” actually means. 





> The sound and pronunciation is, yes, plausible enough,


Indeed, it is persuasive.





> I much prefer the theory that the use of 'think' as a noun, when it is a verb, illustrates the wonderful diversity and imagination of language and our intuitive and intelligent use of it.


I must admit to some surprise that you think that a word being both a noun and a verb is at all remarkable.





> Why isn't that view just as plausible?


Mainly because someone’s being amazed is not proof of anything. 





> After all, the creation of language in the first place is miraculous.


Only if you believe in magic. The origins of language are not so strange as to be described as “miraculous”. You may wish to look at the evolution of the hominid skull, particularly the jaw muscles and tendon composition, and their relationship to speech development. You may also wish to note the animals that have a form of mutually comprehensible vocal communication and many other creatures use signalling to convey intelligence.


----------



## Jakeoclubs

If you think I'll sit around while you chip away my brain
Listen I ain't fooling and you'd better think again
You got another thing coming.

If somebody doesn't understand how "thing" could be used there, well I am sorry, their judgment must be called into question.


----------



## PaulQ

We understand how it works but we thinkists would not use *thing*. If you cannot understand that, "well I am sorry, your judgment must be called into question."

Does that help?


----------



## gramman

Typical thinkist bias.  Sometimes the one thing you can be certain of.


----------



## wandle

Shock Horror Outrage in Parliament: The Thing From Inner Space invades Westminster.

Today, Wednesday 24th April, in Prime Minister's Question Time, David Cameron distinctly (to my ears at least) said:

_'If anyone thinks that slavery was effectively abolished in 1807, they have another thing coming'._

Point of order, Mr. Speaker: that is unParliamentary language from the Prime Minister.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

Agreed. Even as a thingist I would have to concede that that rings pretty awful. What _was_ he thinging?


----------



## dreamlike

wandle said:


> Shock Horror Outrage in Parliament: The Thing From Inner Space invades Westminster.
> 
> Today, Wednesday 24th April, in Prime Minister's Question Time, David Cameron distinctly (to my ears at least) said:
> 
> _'If anyone thinks that slavery was effectively abolished in 1807, they have another thing coming'._
> 
> Point of order, Mr. Speaker: that is unParliamentary language from the Prime Minister.


I'm used to seeing that all the time in American TV series. I honestly don't know how one can start a sentence with 'If you think that' and finish it with 'thing'. What a daft thing to say.


----------



## JustKate

It sounds perfectly fine to me and not even slightly "daft." (Nor is it AmE, by the way. Both thingists and thinkists are found in both AmE and BE, as you can tell from the responses in this thread.) I simply don't say - I have never under any circumstances said - "have another think coming." "Have another think coming" sounds, in fact...well, I won't say "daft," but I will say that it sounds wrong. I know that it's not wrong because "have another think coming" is an established idiom - as is "have another thing coming." But that's how it sounds to me. For me, the idiom is and always has been "think that/have another thing coming." Nothing else sounds correct to me.

Forgive me if this comes off as sounding holier-than-thou because I really don't mean it that way, but I thought this thread had evolved beyond one side or the other posting examples of how horrible the other side's usage sounds. Am I wrong about that?


----------



## bluegiraffe

dreamlike said:


> I'm used to seeing that all the time in American TV series. I honestly don't know how one can start a sentence with 'If you think that' and finish it with 'thing'. What a daft thing to say.


If you think that you can't succeed, you'll never achieve anything.  There you go.  That's your theory dispproved.  Please refrain from calling (approximately) half* of all native English speakers daft.          *according to an earlier post in this thread


----------



## Hau Ruck

> Originally Posted by *dreamlike*
> I'm used to seeing that all the time in  American TV series. I honestly don't know how one can start a sentence  with 'If you think that' and finish it with 'thing'. What a daft thing  to say.




Just because you start a sentence with 'think' you don't have to end it in 'think'. This epitomizes the whole nature of this thread.

'Think' and 'thing' don't have to be the same thing. 

You can clearly think something will be one way, and another _thing_ happens.  

You must not say something is daft simply out of not knowing about it, Dreamlike. That was not well said.


----------



## dreamlike

bluegiraffe said:


> If you think that you can't succeed, you'll never achieve anything. There you go. That's your theory dispproved. Please refrain from calling (approximately) half* of all native English speakers daft. *according to an earlier post in this thread


I'm not calling anyone daft. I merely said that I find that to be a daft thing to say, which does not equal to saying that those who say so are daft. Please kindly refrain from putting words into my mouth. 



Filsmith said:


> Just because you start a sentence with 'think' you don't have to end it in 'think'. This epitomizes the whole nature of this thread.
> 
> 'Think' and 'thing' don't have to be the same thing.
> 
> You can clearly think something will be one way, and another _thing_ happens.
> 
> You must not say something is daft simply out of not knowing about it, Dreamlike. That was not well said.


Yes, I guess that's the whole point of the thread.... I do see your point, but I, for what it's worth, side with the thinkinsts here. Different strokes for different folks. Note that even Beryl, the thingist, sees that as 'ringing pretty awful'.


----------



## cyberpedant

This is the seven hundred sixty-first post in a thread about whether it is appropriate to vocalize a final consonant or not. "Who woulda thunk it?"


----------



## london calling

Well I never. A very interesting thread. I have never, ever  come across "you've got another *thing* coming" (and I'm very well-travelled). Good to know.


----------



## lucas-sp

london calling said:


> I have never, ever  come across "you've got another *thing* coming" (and I'm very well-travelled). Good to know.


Well, to be honest, you probably have - but reading/hearing language is stochastic, so we hear the word endings that fit our assumptions based on the word beginnings. Once you heard "you've got a..." you had already filled in "...nother thing/k coming" the way you had learned it. In other words, you've _heard_ the alternate variant without ever having _perceived_ it.

To me, David Cameron's sentence sounds completely normal (if, perhaps, rhetorically suspect - is human bondage something to scold people about in a folksy way?); capitalizing a middle letter in unParliamentary is much stranger...


----------



## JustKate

lucas-sp said:


> Well, to be honest, you probably have - but reading/hearing language is stochastic, so we hear the word endings that fit our assumptions based on the word beginnings. Once you heard "you've got a..." you had already filled in "...nother thing/k coming" the way you had learned it. In other words, you've _heard_ the alternate variant without ever having _perceived_ it.



True. Until I started frequenting grammar boards, _*I*_ thought I'd never heard "another think coming," and clearly I was wrong about that. When it comes to expressions, what you hear is what you expect to hear. Now that you've been acclimated, London Calling, you might hear it nooooooowwww! 



lucas-sp said:


> To me, David Cameron's sentence sounds completely normal (if, perhaps, rhetorically suspect - is human bondage something to scold people about in a folksy way?); capitalizing a middle letter in unParliamentary is much stranger...



I'm glad you mentioned this because I thought of it too but couldn't put it into words. This is a very serious subject for a phrase as school marmish as "Have another think/thing coming."


----------



## mplsray

lucas-sp said:


> Well, to be honest, you probably have - but reading/hearing language is stochastic, so we hear the word endings that fit our assumptions based on the word beginnings. Once you heard "you've got a..." you had already filled in "...nother thing/k coming" the way you had learned it. In other words, you've _heard_ the alternate variant without ever having _perceived_ it.



I'm sure that this happened in my case, with the "think" version being the one which I had heard but interpreted as "thing" because that was how I had learned the expression. I did not learn that the "think" version existed until I was in high school and read a discussion about the matter in a book on English usage.


----------



## JulianStuart

In case you hadn't noticed, the post with the next highest number of replies has only 230ish responses (it is about "in case"; that number might be mich larger if all the threads on that subject were in one place).  
This thread has burst of activity, prompted by each revival, but it appears there are two parallel universes, both claiming logic is on their side*, that overlap on pretty much everything except on which of the two phrases is "correct" and a bridge seems well-nigh impossible.

* I think a good case can be made that the claimed logic was "built" by each user  to explain their first experience hearing the phrase and has proven resistant to change.  There are very few exceptions, apparently, where people first heard it one way and now espouse the other as "correct".

Corss-posted in the latest burst


----------



## ewie

lucas-sp said:


> To me, David Cameron's sentence sounds completely normal (if, perhaps, rhetorically suspect - is human bondage something to scold people about in a folksy way?)





JustKate said:


> I'm glad you mentioned this because I thought of it too but couldn't put it into words. This is a very serious subject for a phrase as school marmish as "Have another think/thing coming."


To be fair to Cameron, he _is_ a complete and utter knob


----------



## wandle

lucas-sp said:


> ... is human bondage something to scold people about in a folksy way?);


He was expressing agreement with a member who had called for the phenomenon of modern-day slavery to be taken seriously. 
In other words, he was admonishing those who say it does not exist.


> capitalizing a middle letter in unParliamentary is much stranger...


On second thoughts, I would uncapitalise it if it had not already been quoted. 
'Un-American', 'un-English' etc. are the models I was ineptly following.


----------



## JustKate

On a side note, Ewie has again proven how fab BE is when it comes to insults. I wonder if I can get "utter knob" accepted over here? I think we have a real need for it!



			
				JulianStuart said:
			
		

> In case you hadn't noticed, the post with the next highest number of replies has only 230ish responses (it is about "in case"; that number might be mich larger if all the threads on that subject were in one place).
> This thread has burst of activity, prompted by each revival, but it appears there are two parallel universes, both claiming logic is on their side*, that overlap on pretty much everything except on which of the two phrases is "correct" and a bridge seems well-nigh impossible.
> 
> 
> * I think a good case can be made that the claimed logic was "built" by each user to explain their first experience hearing the phrase and has proven resistant to change. There are very few exceptions, apparently, where people first heard it one way and now espouse the other as "correct".



Although I am a life-long thingist, I don't think I have logic solely on my side. Each version has some logic on its side, but of course the plain fact is that in almost every case, logic has nothing to do with why one person uses _think_ and another _thing_. It's an idiom, and it means what it means no matter what precise words are used. 

I do really dislike it when someone acts as though my version is daft, though. I don't take it personally, but as this thread ought to demonstrate, that position is completely illogical - far less logical than either _another thing_ or _another think_.


----------



## JulianStuart

JustKate said:


> On a side note, Ewie has again proven how fab BE is when it comes to insults. I wonder if I can get "utter knob" accepted over here? I think we have a real need for it!
> 
> 
> 
> Although I am a life-long thingist, I don't think I have logic is solely on my side. Each version has some logic on its side, but of course the plain fact is that in almost every case, logic has nothing to do with why one person uses _think_ and another _thing_. It's an idiom, and it means what it means no matter what precise words are used.
> 
> I do really dislike it when someone acts as though my version is daft, though. I don't take it personally, but as this thread ought to demonstrate, that position is completely illogical - far less logical than either _another thing_ or _another think_.


You are right.  Although a person's usage does rest almost totally on which is heard first - the subsequent thinging about the logic is not somethink everyone does.


----------



## lucas-sp

wandle said:


> He was expressing agreement with a member who had called for the phenomenon of modern-day slavery to be taken seriously.
> In other words, he was admonishing those who say it does not exist.


That seems clear. The point is that it sounds like he's saying "To those who don't think that slavery is still a problem: tsk, tsk." The mode of admonition ("tsk, tsk" / "you've got another thing coming!") doesn't seem to match the _gravity_ of the thing the admonition is about. Old-timey, folksy patter just seems inappropriate for this subject to me (whether "think" or "thing"). It reminds me of one of our American knobs, that Sarah Palin character...

And wandle, since your post was so expertly capitalized otherwise, I just assumed "unParliamentary" was a BE spelling. Discussions like this one have encouraged me to keep an open mind!


----------



## timpeac

There once was a thread called think thing,
Whose opponents were hard of hearing.
When devoicing a stop
The meaning would swap
And back they would jump in the ring.


----------



## wandle

lucas-sp said:


> The mode of admonition ("tsk, tsk" / "you've got another thing coming!") doesn't seem to match the _gravity_ of the thing the admonition is about.


Informal expressions are used in Parliament, even (or particularly) by ministers who want to hint at something without committing themselves. It may mean he has some anti-slavery measure in mind.


----------



## JustKate

wandle said:


> Informal expressions are used in Parliament, even (or particularly) by ministers who want to hint at something without committing themselves. It may mean he has some anti-slavery measure in mind.



I don't think Lucas is criticizing the informality of the expression. I think what bothers him is what bothers me, which is that "You have another thing/think coming" doesn't sound like the sort of thing *I'd* use when I was talking about the heartbreaking wrong that is slavery. It's more the kind of thing used when your child has been naughty or when you're complaining to the electric company over a billing mistake. It's used more to chide someone for misbehavior than to denounce a great wrong.


----------



## Loob

_(Re post 772)_

Nice one, Sir Tim ~ let's all agree
That henceforth all posts here should be
In rhyme! With luck, this *endless* thread
Will well and truly soon be dead....


----------



## wandle

JustKate said:


> I don't think Lucas is criticizing the informality of the expression....
> "You have another thing/think coming" doesn't sound like the sort of thing *I'd* use when I was talking about the heartbreaking wrong that is slavery.


 It was 'they have ...'

The point about the informality is that it is a way of getting things said in Parliament in a form which cannot be tied down precisely and therefore cannot be brought up later to criticise the speaker.

It is also comon in Parliament to use informal expressions, which may sound like gloating (and for that reason grate on the viewing public), when referring to a policy which you believe puts your party on the moral high ground.

It could even be that the question was a friendly one, pre-arranged to give the PM the opportunity to do a bit of anticipatory gloating over what is in store for people-traffickers, who are known to operate in this country, in view of the pressure that exists to do something about them.


----------



## ewie

Loob said:


> _(Re post 772)_
> 
> Nice one, Sir Tim ~ let's all agree
> That henceforth all posts here should be
> In rhyme! With luck, this *endless* thread
> Will well and truly soon be dead....


Surely there can be absolutely nothink more
To say on this think that's become such an unthingable bore.


----------



## Loob

*LoLly, LoLly, LoLly, Lol*
As always, E: extremely droll!


----------



## wandle

It is clear from Hansard (24-4-2013, Prime Minister, Column 881-2) that I slightly misquoted the PM, though not, I maintain, on the key point:


> Anyone who thinks that slavery was effectively abolished in 1807 has got another think coming.


Hansard has corrected the phrase from 'thing coming', which I distinctly heard, to 'think coming', which is good English.

The PM refers members to a current exhibition in Parliament on slavery and adds:


> It is an excellent exhibition and there is more for the Government to do.


----------



## JustKate

Yes, except that _thing coming_ is good English as well. Jeez.



			
				wandle said:
			
		

> It was 'they have ...'
> 
> 
> The point about the informality is that it is a way of getting things said in Parliament in a form which cannot be tied down precisely and therefore cannot be brought up later to criticise the speaker.
> 
> 
> It is also comon in Parliament to use informal expressions, which may sound like gloating (and for that reason grate on the viewing public), when referring to a policy which you believe puts your party on the moral high ground.



I am apparently not making myself clear, and for that, I apologize. (Either that or you simply disagree, which is fine.) The point isn't that _you/they have another think/thing coming_ is informal. Of course informal expressions are used in Parliament (and the U.S. Congress), and there's nothing wrong with that. The point is that this particular expression is more suited to chiding than it is to denunciations - it almost begs to be followed by "you naughty boy" or "you jerk," not the sort of names that traffickers in human beings deserve to be called. Trafficking deserves denunciation, not "they've got another thing/think coming, those naughty people." The tone of this expression seems disproportionately mild compared to the enormity of the crime being discussed.


----------



## Loob

I must say, I agree with Kate.
The comment's really too _lightweight_


----------



## JustKate

That's a *very* good adjective. I wish I'd thought of it.


----------



## timpeac

JustKate said:


> it almost begs to be followed by "you naughty boy" or "you jerk," not the sort of names that traffickers in human beings deserve to be called. Trafficking deserves denunciation, not "they've got another thing/think coming, those naughty people."


But he was chiding the people who are naive enough to think that slavery is finished, not those who show the practice is undiminished.


----------



## wandle

JustKate said:


> ... The point is that this particular expression is more suited to chiding than it is to denunciations .... The tone of this expression that seems disproportionately mild compared to the enormity of the crime being discussed.


In general, it may be 'chiding'; but it could equally well be a threat (depending on context).

In the present context, it seems to be an implied threat. It reads to me like a warning to anyone who thinks that the law is not going to change.

If it seems lightweight, was it not Theodore Roosevelt who said, 'Speak softly and carry a big stick'?
In this case, the stick is not out of sight.


----------



## Loob

Oh right, if others are averse
To take Tim's lead and write in verse
I'll just give up and watch the thread
(I *still* hope it'll soon be dead.)


----------



## JustKate

It just doesn't work as a threat for me. Well, OK, it works as a threat from a parent to a child or from a man to the neighbor whose dog who barks all night - but not as a threat of serious moral or even political consequences. And apparently I am not alone, if I am interpreting Loob and Lucas correctly.

This thread has more lives than a cat
What can be the reason for that?
Is there anything we
have yet to see?
I think (or thing) it's gone quite flat.


----------



## lucas-sp

wandle said:


> ... 'think coming', which is *good* *English*.


(Doggerel ho!)

After reading this thread from fore to aft,
It's surely this viewpoint that's nothing but "daft."
It seems to me that you'll sure come a cropper
If you don't think of English as always improper.


----------



## wandle

See English as always improper? Not I!
For if it were _always_ improper, then why
Take the trouble to enter a post on this site?
It is sometimes improper: then I put it right.


----------



## PaulQ

wandle said:


> It is clear from Hansard that I slightly misquoted the PM, [...]
> 
> Hansard has corrected the phrase from 'thing coming', which I distinctly heard, to 'think coming', which is good English.


I always knew there was something shifty about that man!


----------



## wandle

JustKate said:


> It just doesn't work as a threat for me.


No threat, when law in all its might 
Is present to our inward sight?
No threat, when jail and confiscation
May scourge the troublers of the nation?

Restrained or mild his spoken word,
Yet still that undertone is heard
When Cameron adds, before he's through, 
'The Government has more to do'.


----------



## JustKate

wandle said:


> No threat, when law in all its might
> Is present to our inward sight?
> No threat, when jail and confiscation
> May scourge the troublers of the nation?
> 
> Restrained or mild his spoken word,
> Yet still that undertone is heard
> When Cameron adds, before he's through,
> 'The Government has more to do'.





I can't answer you rhyme for rhyme right now, but the short, non-rhyming answer is it works only as a lightweight threat. When used as a serious threat, it just sounds silly. 

What I'm saying that is if he was making a genuine threat about this serious issue, he chose his words badly. "You've got another think/thing coming" does not belong in this discussion of this issue because it's a lightweight (thanks so much to Loob for coming up with that adjective) and the topic is a heavyweight. It would be like looking at the worst, most evil person in the world and saying, "You are quite unpleasant."

But apparently you disagree, so I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Or you'll have another thing coming.


----------



## wandle

JustKate said:


> it works only as a lightweight threat. When used as a serious threat, it just sounds silly.


When read in its low-key but serious context (see Column 881-2), the statement _'Anyone who thinks slavery was effectively abolished in 1807 has got another think coming'_ seems to me noticeably aggressive, if somewhat crude, and prompts the question, 'What has he got up his sleeve?'


----------



## David_Porta

I am watching this scene in the movie, and the line jumped out at me. I see there is another thread on WRF about this formulation, and it then refers to here, but, anyway, here is a documented usage, the construction of which supports the verb construction "think."

"They think they can lick Myron Hasler with this sort of trickery they got another guess coming." ~ *The Pajama Game*, bottom of page 104

script


----------



## skymouse

I'm from the UK. "You've got another thing coming" is a very well known expression and I've never once come across "...think...".

The "thing" version makes sense. "another thing" means "something else". "You've got another thing coming" means "you've got something else [which you didn't bargain for!] coming [i.e. on its way to you]!"

"Another think coming" is gibberish.


----------



## Prairiefire

Gentle moderator: Isn't it time to close this thread, perhaps with a link to _ Post 289? _Everything that can be said has been said. Six times. Or more.


----------



## cyberpedant

skymouse said:


> "Another think coming" is gibberish.




If you think "another think coming" is gibberish, you've got another think coming. (You might have had a look at one or two of the previous seven hundred ninety-three posts before making this arrogant statement.)


----------



## cyberpedant

I entirely agree with Prairiefire. (#795)


----------



## JulianStuart

Prairiefire said:


> Gentle moderator: Isn't it time to close this thread, perhaps with a link to _ Post 289? _Everything that can be said has been said. Six times. Or more.


If we closed this, a newcomer to the multi-lap race will open a new one, so we keep it open for the periodic newcomer to vent, one way or another, that one is gibberish and the other is completely normal.  It goes back and forth, of course, as to which is which.  Most people who take the time to read even a few % of the threads realize that there are two camps and never the twain shall change their mind 

Besides, it's the current record-holder by far for number of posts, and is by and large harmless!  Thanks for reminding folks they can save days out of their lives by reading the interim summary (originally conceived as the "final" summary, but that was long ago now  )


----------



## london calling

skymouse said:


> "Another think coming" is gibberish.


That's only your opinion, I'm from London, to me "another thing coming" would be gibberish (but it isn't, seeing that many people say it).


----------



## Hau Ruck

Even though I am a 100% "thing-ist" I agree that denouncing the variant is not appropriate. 

No one knows which came first, the "think" or the "thing", but they are both alive and well; they are both widely used regardless of locale. 

I agree that this thread should be locked up. We don't have to delete it, but why not lock it so that the hundreds of entries can be viewed. We've more than covered the subject (to death.) Further input from future audiences does not mean they need to post in order to understand this thread. All we see are random people popping up to say they "saw it used".  Great, we've got it. It's used. They both are. Stop posting about it.

All future readers: Both "think" and "thing" are fine; use either.  The end.


----------



## JustKate

Oh, I don't think it should be locked. It's...it's a *tradition*, for goodness' sake. Besides, I really can't think of a better way to keep all of these discussions corralled.


----------



## Andygc

JustKate said:


> Oh, I don't think it should be locked. It's...it's a *tradition*, for goodness' sake. Besides, I really can't think of a better way to keep all of these discussions corralled.


Kate, the Royal Navy has traditions, the Army has customs, and the WordReference English Only forum has habits.

To remain on topic. If you don't agree with what I just wrote, you've another think coming.


----------



## JamesM

Well, I'd say we have _obsessions_.


----------



## skymouse

As a relative newcomer to this forum, I think this is a wonderful thread, and especially wonderful as a live thread.

Why? Because its unresolvable and perennial nature, with its revolving door of contributors, is a very good lesson about the nature of language. It should stay open as a reminder that usage is something that we can compare notes about, seek interesting explanations for, and gain insights from, and that the benefit is not defeated for want of unearthing an absolute rule.


----------



## Grabern

Is this thread for real? 800 posts? 7 years? It's 'think'. End of argument.


----------



## PaulQ

Well, I think that settles it. All we now require are profuse apologies from 'thingists'.


----------



## Andygc

Grabern said:


> 800 posts? 7 years?


Try reading them, understand what they say, and then adjust your reality. There is a summary in post #289.


----------



## Grabern

Andygc said:


> Try reading them, understand what they say, and then adjust your reality. There is a summary in post #289.



I've read lots of them, and the #289 summary, in a state of stupefaction. The expression is 'another think coming'. I appreciate that language changes and evolves, but usually only through ignorance. For example, 'infer' now means the same as 'imply'. If some people think the phrase is 'another thing coming', then it's either a case of evolution through ignorance or poor hearing.


----------



## e2efour

You clearly haven't read the posts with sufficient care. Some of them may be pointless (as you apparently think), but at the very least the thread has the virtue of drawing attention to the existence of two parallel expressions, of which I for one was unaware.


----------



## Hau Ruck

Andygc said:


> Try reading them, understand what they say, and then adjust your reality. There is a summary in post #289.





<< tsk, tsk - Rule 15 >>


----------



## PaulQ

Grabern said:


> I've read lots of them, and the #289 summary, in a state of stupefaction. The expression is 'another think coming'. I appreciate that language changes and evolves, but usually only through ignorance. For example, 'infer' now means the same as 'imply'. If some people think the phrase is 'another thing coming', then it's either a case of evolution through ignorance or poor hearing.


This, as you are aware, is a repetition of early, inconclusive arguments. 

What the thread needs to progress, and you may be the poster to do it, is a definitive early use of think/thing in sufficient context, and separated by sufficient time, to decide if it is thing or think and if (i) it is one saying, the variant of which is a corruption of the original, or (ii) two sayings that have independently come into existence via different routes.

Any references will be most welcome.


----------



## Grabern

PaulQ said:


> This, as you are aware, is a repetition of early, inconclusive arguments.
> 
> What the thread needs to progress, and you may be the poster to do it, is a definitive early use of think/thing in sufficient context, and separated by sufficient time, to decide if it is thing or think and if (i) it is one saying, the variant of which is a corruption of the original, or (ii) two sayings that have independently come into existence via different routes.
> 
> Any references will be most welcome.



No. There IS no debate. It's 'think'.


----------



## PaulQ

Great!   How do you know?


----------



## Grabern

Cos I'm a professional writer. And I have a brain.


----------



## Hau Ruck

Grabern said:


> Cos I'm a professional writer. And I have a brain.



'Cos' you are a professional writer. Well then, that solves this dilemma.


----------



## Andygc

Grabern

You appear to have missed one of the essential principles of the Wordreference Forums. It is in the Forum Rules which you can access from a link at the top of the page.





> *The Forums promote learning and maintain an atmosphere that is  serious, academic and collaborative, with a respectful, helpful and  cordial tone.*


If you had read this thread carefully you would have discovered the historical evidence that exists for the length of time for which these two forms have been used. Written records suggest that they have been used for about the same length of time. If you have evidence that that is not the case you are welcome to present it, and members will be interested to see it.

On the other hand, if your objective is merely to be dogmatic and opinionated, then there seems little point in your posting in this thread.


----------



## PaulQ

Grabern said:


> Cos I'm a professional writer. And I have a brain.


Well, that's great too. But do you recall "The one-sided fallacy":





> He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.
> 
> Source: John Stuart Mill, On Liberty


http://www.fallacyfiles.org/onesided.html


----------



## lucas-sp

Grabern said:


> ... language changes and evolves, but usually only through ignorance.


That's a pretty ignorant viewpoint. I'm sure that people in the past adopted new words from foreign languages (assassin, zeitgeist), or created new words for objects that never existed before (television, appletini), or invented new phrases and terms through wordplay and poetry ("trip the light fantastic"), simply because they were "ignorant" about the "right" way to speak.

And just as a PS, "thing" has already won. In fifty years, we won't be having this debate at all... once I finally manage to exile all the "think"-ists to the Island of Outdated Versions of Odd, Folksy Expressions.


----------



## Hau Ruck

Grabern said:


> Cos ..... I have a brain.



If you think you are going to 'win' this argument with such posts, well then, you've got another thing coming.

See? The 'thing' that is coming is more posts to your ridiculous ones. Or the 'thing' might be a ban.

You see, your 'thinks' can bring about many 'things'.  

Thanks for helping me prove my 'thing' point.


----------



## wandle

lucas-sp said:


> And just as a PS, "thing" has already won.


You may well think so: I couldn't possibly agree. Please have another think.


----------



## lucas-sp

wandle said:


> You may well think so: I couldn't possibly agree. Please have another think.


I don't need to think; I just need to live a few more decades.

(Remember how we showed that in searches of Google News and other corpora which look at _current_ usage "thing" has already eclipsed "think"?)


----------



## Hau Ruck

wandle said:


> You may well think so: I couldn't possibly agree. Please have another think.



Au contraire my friend. Lucas' thinking has brought about the possibility of many things.   Things that can bring all of us to unanimous agreement!

*wishful thinking thinging


----------



## wandle

I recommend having a think about it rather than having a thing about it.


----------



## lucas-sp

It seems like we've all got a pretty big thing about it already.

Was it Paul who described the terror of realizing that he (one of the thinkiest think-ests on the thread) had raised a thing-ist child? Weren't some wills re-written?


----------



## wandle

lucas-sp said:


> (Remember how we showed that in searches of Google News and other corpora which look at _current_ usage "thing" has already eclipsed "think"?)


I was, and am, unconvinced by that proposition.


----------



## Hau Ruck

wandle said:


> I recommend having a think about it rather than having a thing about it.



But you see, that just epitomizes the whole issue we are all having.

A think does not have to bring about _another _resulting think, per se.
A think can bring about a thing. 

No one's doubting that people have thinks. I have thinks, lucas has thinks, all of the 'thing-ists' have thinks. (Personally I 'think' - I can't recall ever having 'a think' - but that is completely another matter for another day and thread.)

None of us going around having a thing or thinging. That's silly. 
We think things that bring about other things. That's all. 

Your usage is perfectly fine with me. Just don't go thinking that it will change a thing in my mind.


----------



## lucas-sp

I don't expect you to be convinced. No, Mister Wandle, I expect you to die... (after living a rich, full life.)

But let's check in on the answer in ~50 years. Of course, by then we may all be speaking Beta Centaurian, and all this squabbling will have been for naught.


----------



## PaulQ

Let the thingists recount their puny, paper opinions. They shall wither, as will all, before the cause of The Holy Thinkists’ glorious and righteous might. The thingists are but mewling kittens who shall taste blood instead of milk.1


1If it’s OK with you.


----------



## The Prof

Since this thread started, I have brought up the expression with several people to see which version they know. Surprisingly, quite a few have expressed uncertainty about what they themselves would say (from which I would conclude that it is not in their active vocabulary). The only reason I mention this is to point out that between the thinkists (of which I am one) and the thingists, there lies a third group that is just waiting to be 'converted' to one camp or the other. Naturally, I've done my best to recruit them into the thinkist camp.


----------



## JamesM

lucas-sp said:


> I don't expect you to be convinced. No, Mister Wandle, I expect you to die... (after living a rich, full life.)
> 
> But let's check in on the answer in ~50 years. Of course, by then we may all be speaking Beta Centaurian, and all this squabbling will have been for naught.



  Love the gratuitous Bond movie reference.


----------



## velisarius

lucas-sp said:


> It seems like we've all got a pretty big thing about it already.
> 
> Was it Paul who described the terror of realizing that he (one of the thinkiest think-ests on the thread) had raised a thing-ist child? Weren't some wills re-written?


David Porta in post #280 revealed that his mum is a thingist , but I believe the honour of describing the shock of discovering a thingist child in the family was mine, in post #301. Soon I'll be welcoming a grandchild into the family, and I'm going to make pretty sure that s(he) grows up a staunch thinkist like grandma. If my son thinks his child is going to be a thingist, he's got another think coming.


----------



## lucas-sp

JamesM said:


> Love the gratuitous Bond movie reference.


You can call me "Goldthinger." (Also I'm glad that someone got the joke; otherwise I'd just be another crazy internet person making death threats against strangers.)


----------



## Hau Ruck

lucas-sp said:


> You can call me "Goldthinger." (Also I'm glad that someone got the joke; otherwise I'd just be another crazy internet person making death threats against strangers.)



Oh, I got it. I just live in constant fear of 'side chatter' on here. But I guess since a moderator has now done it, I can as well. Fair play.
Nice job on the 'Goldthinger' as well. That was well played.


----------



## wandle

JamesM said:


> Love the gratuitous Bond movie reference.





lucas-sp said:


> You can call me "Goldthinger." (Also I'm glad that someone got the joke; otherwise I'd just be another crazy internet person making death threats against strangers.)


I'm just hoping it was a riposte to my House of Cards TV reference.

What I think has been shown is that the 'think' version came first and that the 'thing' version has developed from it through the operation of natural phonological laws (a process which might be described as mispronunciation and/or mishearing of the original).

This indicates, in my view, that logic is on the side of 'think' and that phonological inertia is on the side of 'thing' and the interesting question to be watched over coming decades is which will predominate.


----------



## PaulQ

Of the 800 posts, most concern an opinion, a recollection, an example, or a personal belief in thing or think.

These are the one that offer some substance.

*Claim that ‘thing’ is an error*


morgoth2604 said:


> According to this site which is pretty accurate most of the time, it's you've got another think coming (which also makes sense!)!
> Here’s a case in which eagerness to avoid error leads to error. The original expression is the last part of a deliberately ungrammatical joke: “If that’s what you think, you’ve got another think coming.”
> http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/thing.html


*’Think’ is a noun and has been since at least 1835*


Aupick said:


> Think is also a noun, though, as in "I'll have to have a think about that...".
> 
> The OED gives two meanings of "think" as a noun: "act of thinking" as in the example above, and "opinion":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “My own private think is that he will execute another voluntary." (Lady Granville, 1835)
> "The cobbler..dispenses his ‘think’..to all comers on all subjects." (J. Brown, 1861)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's this one that leads to "you've another think coming".
Click to expand...

*Two versions of the same idiom*


mplsray said:


> I did find both the "think" and "thing" versions identified as idioms--or rather, as two versions of the very same idiom--in the following entry from the Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms:
> 
> *"If sb thinks sth, they've got another thing/think coming! informal*
> 
> "something that you say when you are angry with someone because they are expecting you to do something for them that you do not want to do"
> 
> The example sentence uses the "think" version.


*Earliest known publication of ‘think.’*


Cagey said:


> On Google books, the earliest incident of "another _think_ coming" is 1873. Certainly it was in spoken language before that.
> "You think I ought to thank you for butting in and keeping me from dying without knowing anything about it, don't you? Well, *you got another think coming*." ... from the American _Publishers Weekly_ - 1873


*Possibility of ‘think’ becoming ‘thing’:*


JamesM said:


> I am saying is that there is only conjecture on the matter in any source I have read. Although the common theory is that the "thing" came from the elision of the "k" in "think" and the "c" in coming, there is no proof offered.
> 
> There are contemporaneous citations from 1919 for "think coming" and "thing coming" in two U.S. newspapers. [...] the "thing coming" is in Merriam-Webster's learner's dictionary:
> 
> http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/thing
> 
> "have another thing coming informal —used to say that someone is wrong or mistaken ▪ If he thinks he can fool me, he has another thing coming"


*Early use of ‘Think’ and ‘Thing’*


JamesM said:


> The expression is recorded long before "To Kill a Mockingbird".
> 
> Here are some examples from 1906 to 1910:
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1,cdr:1,cd_min:Jan%201_2%201906,cd_max
> 
> ec%2031_2%201910&tbo=p&q=%22got+another+think+coming%22&num=10#q=%22got+another+think+coming%22&hl=en&tbs=bks:1,cdr:1,cd_min:Jan+1_2+1906,cd_max
> 
> ec+31_2+1910&ei=2HiiTOSrEcrCnAftrOSIBA&start=0&sa=N&fp=2dfc80589dce1472





mplsray said:


> It looks as if no one has yet noted in this thread the dates of first attribution which the Oxford English Dictionary gives for these idioms. The following come from the entries "think" and "thing" respectively:
> The editors of the OED think that the _think_ version came first.
> 
> *[1.]c. to have another think coming...
> 
> 1898* _Syracuse_ (N.Y.) _Standard_ 21 May 8/1 Conroy lives in Troy and thinks he is a corning fighter. This gentleman has another think coming.
> *P17. to have another thing coming...
> 1919* _Syracuse_ (N.Y.) _Herald _12 Aug. 8/3 If you think the life of a movie star is all sunshine and flowers you've got another thing coming.


*Another “authority” – Word Detective:*


Sparky Malarky said:


> Well, I don't even hope to convince anyone (though I'm convinced the correct word is *think*!), but I thought some of you would enjoy this column by the Word Detective. http://www.word-detective.com/2011/12/another-thing-think-coming/


 – _“But now it’s time to don my catcher’s mask, pith helmet and oven gloves and open the envelope. And the winner is … “another think coming.” It first appeared in print in 1898, while “another thing coming” didn’t show up until 1906. True, that’s only eight years, but the Oxford English Dictionary declares quite definitively that “another thing coming” comes from “a misapprehension of ‘to have another think coming’.”_

*Doubt cast on authority*:





mplsray said:


> Just because "think" came first does not make it the only correct choice. To believe that is to fall into the etymological fallacy. Evan Morris, the Word Detective, is himself well aware of this fallacy--he mentions it here, for example--and did not, as far as I can see, intend to say which version was correct. Rather, he was dealing with the question of which version came first.


*From summary post 286:*


n0lqu said:


> Having read the ENTIRE thread, here's my summary/opinion/interpretation of what people have been saying:
> Both usages go back over a century. The earliest print mention of "think" was 1898, I think, versus the earliest print mention of "thing" appears slightly later, about 1906, making it appear "think" came first.
> 
> 
> *ThinGists - "If you think you're going to get away with it, you've got another THING coming!"*
> *ThinKists - "If you think you're going to get away with it, you've got another THINK coming!"*
> *Arguments common to BOTH sides:*


 
*Usage Google Ngram*


Biffo said:


> if we look at the following Google Ngram.
> 
> Search terms English - 1900-2000 - smoothing 3
> http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=another+think+coming%2C+another+thing+coming&year_start=1900&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=


 
*Objection to certainty of original phrase*


lucas-sp said:


> If the phrase started to be written down in formal print in the late 19th century, we can presume that it had been circulating in speech and possibly other media for at least 50-60 years before that. Based on dictionaries and searches of published material, *we have no way of knowing* what was going on with the phrase before it began to be printed in a certain class of publication.


 
*Usage - Google Ngram AE*


Biffo said:


> Here is the Ngram graph of American usage of the phrases: http://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...00&year_end=2000&corpus=17&smoothing=3&share=
> 
> Also see my post number #344 where I quoted American authors.


*Caution with Google Ngram*


panjandrum said:


> I thought I would toss in a small suggestion for all those who are interested in the Ngram analyses.
> 
> Take a look at some of the actual examples that are being counted for "thing".
> My very superficial look revealed something interesting.
> 
> *"another thing coming", AE sources.*
> 4 probably genuine examples.
> 4 examples pointing out that "thing" is an alteration of the "think" version.
> Somehow an alternative version arose: 'You've got _another thing coming_.'
> 1001 Commonly Misused...
> The Oxford Guide to Etymology
> 101 Questions about the English language ... "thing" is a result of linguistic Chinese whispers.
> 1 example of a dictionary that permits either version.
> 1 example that is using the phrase in a completely different context
> 
> So, that amounts to four genuine examples from the first ten.
> 
> I'm not drawing any conclusion from this, but I would like to suggest that it is unwise to draw conclusions from such counts without deeper inspection of the underlying data.


 


JulianStuart said:


> If you include "got" in the phrase and look at early citations, (to 1927) you find most fit the discussion and some even have quotes around the word "think" as if, back then, some editors thought it was a new usage as a noun. (That link to such an example may not work for everyone, but it's in the listings of the previous link!)


 
*To have a think*


JulianStuart said:


> "have a think" has been in print since the 1860s and predates the "got another think coming" -


----------



## David_Porta

It is nice to see the Ngrams recalled.

But those left the "got" out of the phrase. Once it is added, link, it becomes fairly obvious that the thingers are of post 1960 vintage, whereas the thinkers date back to 1905.

Browsing the "Search in Google Books" links at the bottom of the linked Ngram page gives plenty of fairly good examples. The "got" was most essential.


----------



## David_Porta

I was watching some John Wayne movies on DVD recently, and one, The Sea Chase, I think, has a line of dialog that is  clearly "bald-faced lie," but the closed-caption renders it as  "bold-faced lie," so I guess ears will hear what makes sense to the  mind.

In high school too many decades ago I was transcribing a taped  interview, and I rendered "change of venue" as "change of menu" because I  was ignorant of both the word "venue" and the phrase "change of venue."

Lord, I hope my error has not been repeated by others enough to corrupt that phrase as well.


----------



## JulianStuart

David_Porta said:


> It is nice to see the Ngrams recalled.
> But those left the "got" out of the phrase. Once it is added, link, it becomes fairly obvious that the thingers are of post 1960 vintage, whereas the thinkers date back to 1905.
> Browsing the "Search in Google Books" links at the bottom of the linked Ngram page gives plenty of fairly good examples. The "got" was most essential.



Welcome to the party 

Post 204, (ngrams) and posts 208 


JulianStuart said:


> The thing form is a child of the '60s


and 219 show the importance of including got on the ngrams, but you are forgiven for not going back over 600 posts in the thread


----------



## EStjarn

There is this idiom '*see it coming*', which the idioms dictionaries at thefreedictionary.com define as follows:


> to see that something is likely to happen, especially something bad: _I wasn't surprised when the company closed down. You could see it coming. _(Cambridge Idioms Dictionary)





> to know that something bad is about to happen: _I wasn't surprised when they divorced - you could see it coming. (_Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms)


This idiom, 'see it coming', I would suppose to be about as well-known as 'have got another thing/think coming', and I would not be surprised if the two are (unconsciously) interrelated in many a thingist's mind. (I think they are in mine.)

If so, it might, if only to a smaller extent, explain why to many thingists the thinkist's version sounds wrong, as the pronoun 'it' (in 'see it coming') can hardly refer to 'a think'.


----------



## Andygc

> *The Forums promote learning and maintain an atmosphere  that is  serious, academic and collaborative, with a respectful, helpful  and  cordial tone.*



This thread was temporarily closed in order to  restore our usual collegial atmosphere. That done, you're free to  continue discussing the thread topic *You've got another 'thing' / 'think' coming?*

If you post, please do your best to add something useful to what has already been said. Thank you.


----------



## Chasint

I believe I have a new point with the following:

Let us replace the words 'thing' and 'think' with near synonyms and see if that helps us to decide which is more appropriate.

I propose replacing 'a think' with 'a thought' and 'a thing' with 'an entity'.

The two versions now become:

(a) If you think that, you have another thought coming.

(b) If you think that, you have another entity coming.

I suggest that only sentence (a) sounds convincing and so has the stronger case for being correct.


----------



## EStjarn

Yes, between 'thought' and 'entity', I agree that only the former sounds convincing.

But I don't think it is fair to use 'entity' as a synonym for 'thing' in this context, because (as I see it) 'thing' could refer not only to something palpable, but also to an act, a feeling or even a thought, none of which would count as an entity.


----------



## Hau Ruck

Biffo said:


> I believe I have a new point with the following:
> 
> Let us replace the words 'thing' and 'think' with near synonyms and see if that helps us to decide which is more appropriate.
> 
> I propose replacing 'a think' with 'a thought' and 'a thing' with 'an entity'.
> 
> The two versions now become:
> 
> (a) If you think that, you have another thought coming.
> 
> (b) If you think that, you have another entity coming.
> 
> I suggest that only sentence (a) sounds convincing and so has the stronger case for being correct.



That doesn't really solve anything in my opinion. For starters, I'd never replace 'thing' with 'entity'.  That's entirely something else. Something 'out in left field' as we'd say in AmE.

I don't think you really understand the concept of 'thing' that we are applying to the phrase. Entity would not seem right to you, and rightfully so. It doesn't seem correct to me either. I doubt anyone would think it so.

It would be like me proposing that you replace 'think/thought' with 'reflection.'

'If you think that, you have another reflection coming.'  

See? Doesn't really work. Let's not get sidetracked with replacing words.  The set phrases are either 'think' or 'thing'.


----------



## Chasint

Except that I chose 'entity' from a list of synonyms http://thesaurus.com/browse/thing?s=t

I'm not sure that any of the alternatives are better. Possibly 'phenomenon' is the nearest to your idea but I don't find "If you think that, you have another phenomenon coming." to be convincing either. 

Which synonym would you choose from the list?


----------



## EStjarn

Biffo said:


> Which synonym would you choose from the list?



The only synonym I can think of, which is not really a synonym, is 'something', which is defined by AHD as:

_pron. _1. An undetermined or unspecified thing.


----------



## Copyright

Biffo said:


> Which synonym would you choose from the list?


This is a false choice – sometimes there are no suitable substitutes, so there is no reason to choose an unsuitable one. 

I agree with Hau Ruck in post 843: _Let's not get sidetracked with replacing words. The set phrases are either 'think' or 'thing'._


----------



## Chasint

EStjarn said:


> The only synonym I can think of, which is not really a synonym, is 'something', which is defined by AHD as:
> 
> _pron. _1. An undetermined or unspecified thing.


I suppose so but it's self-referential. You are ultimately defining a thing by using the word 'thing'.


----------



## lucas-sp

Biffo said:


> I suppose so but it's self-referential. You are ultimately defining a thing by using the word 'thing'.


I think that perhaps the only one-word synonym for "thing" (an artificial constraint that is part of the "replacing words" game, which we've played before) is "thing." Probably the only _one-word synonym_ for "her" is "her," too.

If we were to accept that every word in the phrase is used with its complete logical meaning - which I don't, since the meaning of an idiom is different from the meaning of its component parts - then "thing" is a short word standing in for "some un-described complex of external experience and your internal psychological reaction to this experience that will be contrary to your current expectations." When you substitute _that_ for "thing," the phrase makes perfect sense.

And (we've said this before and we'll say it again), "You've got another thought coming" _doesn't_ make logical sense in itself, since the thought hardly "comes" to you. Instead you have to re-think your assumptions, which seems like an internal action based on constraint and not merely an additive, external process.

The "word replacement" argument always _looks_​ good, but it can't convince anyone.


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> And (we've said this before and we'll say it again), "You've got another thought coming" _doesn't_ make logical sense in itself, since the thought hardly "comes" to you. Instead you have to re-think your assumptions, which seems like an internal action based on constraint and not merely an additive, external process...


I accept much of what you say but certainly not the above. Phrases such as "a thought came to..." are very common as evidenced by a simple Google search or using ngrams.

*Example*
I searched for "another thought came to me" There were thousands of hits. Here's just one very recent example.

May 6, 2013 –_Another thought came to me while watching the news today.  The program was about 
Syria and how their President Asaad is supposedly killing his people with some type of gas, Horrible!
http://toni55.thoughts.com/posts/another-thought--2_


----------



## lucas-sp

Just from a cursory glance, I can tell that the author of that blog did not have her mind changed at all by any of the "thoughts" that came to her. She's using "a thought came to me" to mean "I had a further thought." I suppose I could say to her "If you think civilization is in decline, then you've got another thought coming... about how civilization is, in fact, in decline." But the situation doesn't fit the "another think/g coming" paradigm.

The point is not that "another thought comes" is an impossible idea or collocation, but that _it does not in itself express the meaning of "you have another thing/k coming."

_(I also personally very much doubt that anything that the writer of that blog may have had in her head could be, even generously, described as a "thought.")


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> Just from a cursory glance, I can tell that the author of that blog did not have her mind changed at all by any of the "thoughts" that came to her. She's using "a thought came to me" to mean "I had a further thought." I suppose I could say to her "If you think civilization is in decline, then you've got another thought coming... about how civilization is, in fact, in decline." But the situation doesn't fit the "another think/g coming" paradigm.
> 
> The point is not that "another thought comes" is an impossible idea or collocation, but that _it does not in itself express the meaning of "you have another thing/k coming."
> __..._


My intention was simply to show that it is very common for people to describe thoughts as 'coming' to them. I realise however that that may lead to a philosophical discussion rather than one which is strictly on topic.

I'll try again to express the meaning in the form that, I believe, you intend.

Here is a dictionary definition

*think
noun*
_[in singular]__informal_

an act of thinking:_I went for a walk to have a think_
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/think?q=think


If we accept that definition then we can substitute as follows:

_If you think that then you have another act of thinking coming._

That makes absolute sense to me. I wonder if it does to you.


----------



## lucas-sp

We've talked about "think" before, and my feelings are somewhere back that-a-way...

But in brief: For me, "to have a think" means "to sit down and consider things at my leisure." As such it's incompatible with whatever is "coming" to you in "another thing/k coming," because whatever's "coming" there isn't "an act of thinking" as "an internally-motivated act of reflection," but instead "an externally-enforced, compulsive reconsideration of one's assumptions." Sure, in both cases we have a noun spelled "t-h-i-n-k," but the _uses_ of the two nouns are so dissimilar that the words cannot be said to be one and the same.

In brief, I do not think that "got another think coming" has anything to do with the noun "a think." And again, parsing idioms by looking at the individual meanings of their component words is a linguistically bankrupt methodology. Tell me what "the bee's knees" means based off of the meanings of "the," "bee's," and "knees"...


----------



## David_Porta

lucas-sp said:


> I do not think that "got another think coming" has anything to do with the noun "a think."



Nor do I.

The phrase "got another think coming."

Its punch lies in its being deliberately non-grammatical.

It is a very in your face Americanism and its punch lies in its suggestion of an uneducated origin.

For moi, "thing" has no punch.


----------



## lucas-sp

David_Porta said:


> Its punch lies in its being *deliberately non-grammatical*.
> 
> It is a very in your face *Americanism* and its punch lies in its suggestion of an *uneducated* origin.


I'm... not willing to go this far.

I should've said in my post #852 that I object to the notion that "another think coming" (like "another thing coming") is transparently deducible from the meaning & function of the words "another," "think," and "coming." That doesn't mean that I want to call it "ungrammatical," "American," or "uneducated." Or that I necessarily agree with any of those judgments. 

A) "uneducated" - It seems that many think-ists have argued that "another think coming" is correct _because_ it is _sophisticated_ wordplay. I recall wandle recently arguing that it wasn't inappropriate for the PM to use that phrase in Parliamentary debate on the subject of human trafficking, because the phrase was not "uneducated" or "folksy"-sounding.

B) "American" - Looking through the OED, "a think" was a noun in BE before it was a noun in AE. And it's probably been a noun for longer than that. If "another think coming" was originally American, nowadays "another thing coming" is the stronger American variant. (Look at contemporary corpori, etc etc; also the think-ist majority here - anecdotal, I know - is made of BE-ers.)

C) "ungrammatical" - Well... I mean, "a think" is a noun. I'm not arguing that it isn't. I'm arguing that its putative use in "another think coming" is not assimilable to its normal use as a noun. Even if it isn't, turning verbs into nouns (and vice-versa) is hardly an unattested form of playing with words in English. So even if you want to call it "strictly ungrammatical," it's hardly an _unattested_ process that's taking place here.

If this thread is good for anything, it's because it stands as a demonstration of how much we need to check our prejudices at the door when we discuss language. For me, "another think/g coming" is fun because it allows me to mess with the categories I subconsciously use to evaluate language, not because it confirms them.

I'm still never, ever going to say it.


----------



## wandle

Strange, the human tendency (evident in various recent posts) to see our own reflection and not to see the other.


lucas-sp said:


> I recall wandle recently arguing that it wasn't inappropriate for the PM to use that phrase in Parliamentary debate on the subject of human trafficking, because the phrase was not "uneducated" or "folksy"-sounding.


The above was never my concern. I was making three points about Cameron:
first, that on the live broadcast of PMQs I had heard him say 'another thing coming';
second, that the official record had corrected this to 'think';
and third, that his remark was apparently expressing a threat of increased future action against people-traffickers.

My only comments on the tone of the remark in context were, first, facetiously, that it was unparliamentary and, second, that it struck me as 'noticeably aggressive, if somewhat crude'.

As for putting 'uneducated' and 'folksy' in quotes, that makes them appear as words used by me. The quotation marks, as used above, amount to saying that those words were taken from my posts: when in fact I had not used them.
May I ask if it is considered acceptable practice in this forum to invent quotations like this?


----------



## Chasint

lucas-sp said:


> We've talked about "think" before, and my feelings are somewhere back that-a-way...
> 
> *(a) *But in brief: For me, "to have a think" means "to sit down and consider things at my leisure." As such it's incompatible with whatever is "coming" to you in "another thing/k coming," because whatever's "coming" there isn't "an act of thinking" as "an internally-motivated act of reflection," but instead "an externally-enforced, compulsive reconsideration of one's assumptions." Sure, in both cases we have a noun spelled "t-h-i-n-k," but the _uses_ of the two nouns are so dissimilar that the words cannot be said to be one and the same.
> 
> *(b)* In brief, I do not think that "got another think coming" has anything to do with the noun "a think." And again, parsing idioms by looking at the individual meanings of their component words is a linguistically bankrupt methodology. Tell me what "the bee's knees" means based off of the meanings of "the," "bee's," and "knees"...


(a) I don't see this. A parent might say to a student "You'd better start revising, you have an exam coming." Taking an exam requires both reflection and activity. This is also true of a 'think'. The verb 'coming' doesn't indicate passivity, it merely signals imminence.

(b) Just because you can cite an example (the bees knees) where the words of a saying don't immediately indicate the meaning, doesn't prove that this is true of all sayings.
Example 
*A Fool and His Money are Soon Parted*
It seems to me that the meaning of the above saying is deducible from its component words.


----------



## wandle

Two well-made points, in my view.


Biffo said:


> It seems to me that the meaning of the above saying is deducible from its component words.


That is true in the vast majority of cases.

However, I do not see any point in trying to substitute a near-synonym for 'thing'.
'Thing' is, of all words, the one of most essential vagueness: any substitute must be more specific in meaning, and for that reason not valid.


----------



## Chasint

wandle said:


> ... I do not see any point in trying to substitute a near-synonym for 'thing'.
> 'Thing' is, of all words, the one of most essential vagueness: any substitute must be more specific in meaning, and for that reason not valid.


The supreme generality of 'thing' is its very weakness. It renders the saw almost meaningless - acting merely as a grammatical placeholder.

We could argue for the inclusion of the word 'thing' in _any saying at all_, e.g.

_A thing in time saves nine.
A thing's as good as a thing to a blind thing.
A thing a day keeps the thing away.

_Far from enriching these sayings, we lose any of their poetry and memorability. I suggest that by substituting "think" with "thing" we similarly weaken the impact of a perfectly serviceable phrase.


----------



## EStjarn

Biffo said:


> I suggest that by substituting "think" with "thing" we similarly weaken the impact of a perfectly serviceable phrase.



Again, I will have to agreee with you. However, thingists do not substitute 'think' with 'thing'. That is something only a thinkist could do. In doing so, he would indeed be weakening "the impact of a perfectly servicable phrase."


----------



## Hau Ruck

EStjarn said:


> Again, I will have to agree with you. However, thingists do not substitute 'think' with 'thing'. That is something only a thinkist could do. In doing so, he would indeed be weakening "the impact of a perfectly servicable phrase."



Exactly. In my opinion, some think_ists_ see this as a replacement of sorts. I, personally, don't see _thing_ as trying to replace _think._ I don't really even hold the two phrases in the same family.

Think_ists_ (in my general, biased opinion) seem to think that one thought leads to another proposed/forced thought by an outside force. Great. That can happen.
Being a thing_ist_, that's not my intent or purpose. I could care less if the person I'm addressing thinks something else from my correction. Another thing in his life/world/(it could even be his thoughts - who knows?) is going to be different that he assumed it'd be.

Please don't think that we want to replace your _think_ with our _thing._ There's really not a comparison or a replacement of sorts. They are just two different ways of seeing the circumstance and consequences stemming from an initial '_mis_think'. 
(See there, I can play along in the game of _verb/nouns - _I took an archaic verb like 'misthink' and turned it into a noun; Who'd of thunk?)


----------



## wandle

I would like to repeat my plea to avoid getting trapped in a 'thinkist' versus 'thingist' mindset (or vice versa).


> I recommend having a think about it rather than having a thing about it.


In other words, there is surely a much better chance of generating light rather than heat if people can stop acting like two opposed camps and instead consider the language issue in a more detached fashion.


----------



## David_Porta

lucas-sp said:


> Looking through the OED, "a think" was a noun in BE before it was a noun in AE. And it's probably been a noun for longer than that.



"Have a think" I will deem UK.
"Got another think" I deem American.



lucas-sp said:


> If "another think coming" was originally American, nowadays "another thing coming" is the stronger American variant.



Not according to the Ngram for "got another think" — Link.

Google Ngram Viewer


----------



## David_Porta

And without the got, American, yet another think ...

The Daily Argus News - Apr 9, 1897

It all grows out of the autocratic and arbitrary way Uncle Jimmy Mount is assuming in running things. Having elected him republicans think they have some voice in the distribution of the spoils and there is where they have another think coming to them.


----------



## frenchifried

Simplified:

If you thing you are going to do this to me, you have another thing coming."

If you think you are going to to do this to me you have another think coming." 

Which do you think is the more acceptable version, fenixpollo?


----------



## Hau Ruck

frenchifried said:


> Simplified:
> 
> If you thing you are going to do this to me, you have another thing coming."
> 
> If you think you are going to to do this to me you have another think coming."
> 
> Which do you think is the more acceptable version, fenixpollo?



Once again, this shows a complete misunderstanding of what is being said. Have you read this entire thread?


----------



## EStjarn

frenchifried said:


> If you thing you are going to do this to me, you have another thing coming."



Which do you think is the more acceptable version, frenchifried:

If you chair you are going to do this to me, you have another chair coming.
If you think you are going to do this to me, you have another think coming.


----------



## Annalees

*Oxford Dictionary
Definition of have got another think coming in English:*
_Informal_ Used to express the speaker’s disagreement with or unwillingness to do something suggested by someone else:_if they think I’m going to do physical jerks, they’ve got another think coming_
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES

If we think - despite what I've said about us being better than last year - if we think even for a moment that we are good enough with the present squad to win the championship next season, then we will have another think coming.
If you thought the ethnic game, which held in thrall several generations, had paled into insignificance in the wake of the popularity of spectacle sports such as cricket and football, you have another think coming.
That may satisfy some people suffering from Frankenfood fixation, but if they think proud British eco-warriors are going to be put off by the facts, they have another think coming.
*MacMillan Dictionary
if someone thinks something, they have another think coming*
used for saying that someone believes they know what will happen, but they are wrong
If she thinks I’ll help her, she has another think coming.


I really think the expression with "thing" is a corruption of the original one, as "think" when followed by "C"oming" is not very clear and might be mistaken for "thing"


----------



## london calling

< Off-topic comment removed. Cagey, moderator >

Just for the record, I agree with Annalees' theory.


----------



## Andygc

london calling said:


> Just for the record, I agree with Annalees' theory.


Just for the record, I think you'll find that this theory has been discussed at great length earlier in the thread and I doubt that reverting back to this particular etymological theory will take this thread any further forward. However, just for fun, I re-ran the ngram using the 2012 corpus and no smoothing. It's a laugh a minute. The enormous peak for "thing" in 1899 is from multiple editions of the same Robert Louis Stevenson text, from his letters:





> I have another thing coming out, which I did not put in the way of the Scribners, I can scarce tell how


 1800-1898 has the same RLS quotation and one other book which doesn't appear to actually contain the search text. The time period 1900-1980 has only 13 books for "thing". Some more reprinting of RLS's letter and several other writers using the same or similar phraseology "another thing coming out/up". There's the 1906 citation that's in the OED, and that's the only one which is equivalent to "another think".

It would seem that previous claims of parallel evolution of "thing" and "think" may have been based on false premises - particularly not looking at the data underlying an ngram.

Here's a new ngram with the usual smoothing restored, but this time with the essential full stop/period following "coming". I've also included "got". 
That seems to put to bed a few fallacies in this thread:
In written English, the use of "think" predates "thing" by more than 60 years, for both "got" and "have".
In written English, the use of "think" is appreciably more common than the use of "thing".
QED


----------



## VicNicSor

To Annalees's post. Besides the two dictionaries mentioned, also:
Longman
OALD
M-W
Collins
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs
... vote for the thin*k *version.

No one dictionary I've checked gives the thin*g* version.
I haven't read the whole thread though


----------



## london calling

Thanks for that, Andy. Very interesting!


----------



## PaulQ

Andygc said:


> Just for the record, [...]


Well done.


----------



## Forero

> No one dictionary I've checked gives the thin*g* version.


I think you mean "No*t* one dictionary". 


VicNicSor said:


> To Annalees's post. Besides the two dictionaries mentioned, also:
> Longman
> OALD
> M-W
> Collins
> McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs
> ... vote for the thin*k *version.


See M-W definition of "have another thing coming". It says it means "have another think coming", which I don't quite agree with, but it does give the "thing" version.

And I found a writeup by Jeremy Butterfield, editor of Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage:





> Similarly, _another thing coming_ makes perfect sense to the people who use it. In that form, the phrase can be interpreted along the lines of ‘something different from what you expect is going to happen to you’. This makes sense too, since both versions of the phrase are a sort of warning, if not a veiled threat.


Mr. Butterfield also offers this quote for englishstackexchange.com:





> I also grew up with another *thing* and I still don’t believe *think* is original. My thoughts are along the following lines. Ehhmm, Ready?? Lots of people, when laying out the list of arguments for their cause will follow that list with, “… And another thing… ” and go on to list more arguments. This was the origin of the phrase in my mind. Think, I reasoned, was then just someone’s clever pun.


And he mentions "the usual split in comments between the ‘English is going to the dogs’ and the ‘variation is a fact of language’ brigades."


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you, I missed that. But it does give two versions and says the "thing" version means the "think" one, and not vice versa. The other M-Ws I have off-line (Collegiate 11 and Unabridged 3) give only the "think".


----------



## PaulQ

Mr Buuterfield said:
			
		

> Similarly, another thing coming makes perfect sense to the people who use it.


I suspect that he is not going to be entirely objective...





			
				Englishstackexchance said:
			
		

> I also grew up with another thing and I still don’t believe think is original....


Ah... it is as I suspected! He cherrypicks in support of his argument: He says "thing", therefore (a) it makes perfect sense and (b) he has a theory. (c) he has found someone else who says *thing*.

I suspect that absent some source evidence, this argument discussion is the same as arguing which is the only true religion. If you grow up believing in god A, then god A is the only one and believers in god B are all deluded.

Anyway, I can't understand why anyone is in any doubt: It is clearly "...you have another *think *coming." because you have just had a "think".


----------



## RedwoodGrove

Well, if Judas Priest is any authority ... They did have a song about it. (_You've Got Another Thing Comin'_) 

From what I've read elsewhere on the web, "think" was, and remains, the original but many people have transformed it into "thing".


----------



## PaulQ

RedwoodGrove said:


> Well, if Judas Priest is any authority ...


No... No, I've checked and they're not. 

*Garner's Modern American Usage *By Bryan Garner



> *another think coming; *another thing coming.* The traditional idiom is “If you think X, you’ve got another think coming. The _OED _records this usage from 1937 (s.v. _think). _It may not be funny anymore, but it makes sense: X is wrong, so eventually you’re going to think Y instead. But a surprising number of writers substitute _thing _for _think, _which is grammatical but not even vaguely clever.
> 
> […]
> 
> The _OED _lists _think _as a dialectal or colloquial noun, with several citations from the 19th century. It shows the phrase _to have another think coming _first used in print in a 1937 article in _American Speech _reporting on the already-established use of that and similar phrases to mean “to be greatly mistaken.”
> *The heavy-metal band Judas Priest may share some blame *for the widespread acceptance of the variant wording; its most commercially successful song was “You’ve Got Another Thing Coming,” first recorded in 1982.


----------



## Andygc

Mr Garner was referring to the 1989 2nd Edition of the OED. The citations have been updated in the third edition

1898  _Syracuse (N.Y.) Standard_ 21 May 8/1  Conroy lives in Troy and thinks he is a corning fighter. This gentleman has another think coming.

(I could point out that this earliest citation is from an American source, but if I did I might be repeating a previous post.)

Please also note that I am not claiming that thingists are wrong, just late to the party. Their much more modern idiom is well established (although I still struggle to understand it).


----------



## gramman

PaulQ said:


> this argument discussion is the same as arguing which is the only true religion.



Or worse, a sectarian struggle.

>>It is clearly "...you have another *think *coming."

Typical thinkist bias. ☺


----------



## Cagey

Andygc said:


> (I could point out that this earliest citation is from an American source, but if I did I might be repeating a previous post.)


There have been 7 citations (including quotations of previous citations), the earliest in 2010.  No sane person would undertake to read the entire thread to find them -- or, if they did, they would no longer be sane when they finished.  At this point, the discussion is bound to be repetitive. 

I am closing the thread.  For those who are interested in the arguments raised, I refer you to the summary post we link to in the first post. 

_Moderator note: This thread has become long enough that you might like to begin your journey by reading a summary of the first 288 posts by someone who read them all. If so, go to Post 289 ... and thank you, n0lqu._ ​​You are on your own, if you want to know whether any additional points were raised in the 590 posts that came after the summary. 

I want to thank people for their participation and good manners. 

Cagey, moderator. 
​


----------

