but which one is correct? Example: “If you think you can just come and go as you please tracking in mud, then you’ve got another [thing/think] coming.” Now, I can’t imagine what meaning “thing” would have in that sentence - what is the “thing” that’s coming? A new car? A doormat? But another “think” ties together with the first “think” and makes a fairly lame little bit of wordplay.
Regardless, the rest of my family always insisted it was “thing”. But then, I have an uncle that says “liberry” and means “somewhere with all them books in it”.
Does anybody know which is correct? Oh, and if you say “thing” then I want to know why because that doesn’t make any sense to me.
The word is ‘think’. It’s shorthand for “If that is what you think is going to happen then you had better re-think the situation, abandon your original thought, and entertain a thought much closer to the way I think or you will meet with dire circumstances.”
I’m pretty sure its ‘thing’, as in ‘if you think you’re getting “some thing” for your birthday, you’ve got another thing coming’ as in in foot up the ass, knuckle sandwich, etc…
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Five months, three days, 20 hours, 22 minutes and 4 seconds.
6273 cigarettes not smoked, saving $784.24.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 18 hours, 45 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!) **
I propose that usage makes it so. there are thousands of cases where un-intentional misspelling and the like have made their way into proper usage.
I have never heard “think” used this way.
Many expressions in our language don’t seem to make sense because the original meaning is lost or times change so much. I dare say in 100 or so years from now , kids will not understand where "priming the pump"came from but will say it and know what to infer from it.
Also, “fuck you” springs to mind. Literally, what does that mean? I mean, wouldn’t you think that would be a GOOD thing to say to someone. I know I like it when it happens to me
As someone who did some brief touching in that other thread, I’ll reiterate what I said there.
The question there was mostly about phrases that are competing with each other in modern English, with either one having some adherents; the ‘think/thing’ controversy is one of them.
As such, usage depends on personal preference or tradition. I happen to have learned “another think” and I feel it carries more force than “another thing”, which I find too vague.
The link provided by retsin appears to bear the personal preference idea out. Much of the ‘corrections’ are a matter of what the author thinks is correct, with occasional evidence given one way or another. He calls ‘carrot or stick’ v. ‘carrot on a stick’ a non-error, but decries the usage of ‘from … to’ with anything other than an extreme; he admits leeway with borrowed foreign phrases rejecting “the El Nino” but not “the hoi polloi”.
And happiness, I don’t think there’ll be a lack of pumps needing priming in 100 years, unless spray bottles, squirt guns, indoor plumbing, camping stoves, etc. disappear. (Although it’s true that the phrase won’t conjure up the classic image of an old metal piston and a giant lever arm).
As a side note, it does annoy me to no end that the “do you feel old?” e-mail forward inevitably claims that kids these days have no idea what “you sound like a broken record” means. Not only do they understand, they almost certainly have seen or heard, if not actually owned, a broken record at some point in their young lives.
panama jack
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 - Judas Priest
It’s true that spray bottles are technically pumps, but I don’t feel the average person would equate them with the saying since they don’t need priming in the graphic manner of well pumps. And, sadly, the pump variety of the camping stove is already dissapearing being replaced by canned fuel stoves.
And I duely note your qualifing “preference”, still I think “force” is too strong a word. I, myself, lean to muppetsoup’s lyrical invocation.
I’d always assumed that “you’ve got another think coming” was referring to another adage, “think twice before you…”–indicating that the you in question had only thought once and was overdue for another.
Wow! Thanks for that link - I feel validated, as it also points out my other most hated error, the misuse of “myself,” and they agree with me on that one, too.
No cite? Did you bother to look at the credentials of the person behind the assertion? The page is maintained by Professor Paul Brians, Department of English, Washington State University. His phone number is even listed, fer cryin’ out loud! That IS a cite, all by itself.
Your proposition holds no force unless you can show yourself to be more qualified than Prof. Brians and the multitude of links I’m fixing to lay on you.
Well, look through these links for more cites:
Everyday usage: http://www.siue.edu/~jfarley/
“If you think what you saw in Twister is what storm chasing is all about, you’ve got another think coming.”
International usage: http://www.expressindia.com/ie/daily/19990607/iex07075.html
Her allies in Tamil Nadu, who used to throng the residence of the country’s most photographed portals in the hope of persuading Jayalalitha not to endanger their hard-earned crumbs of power, too, had another think coming. (An on-line english language Indian newspaper)
Not enough yet? How about this one: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/ling/stories/s40363.htm
“But if you think that’s just evidence that I’m a bleeding heart linguistic liberal and a danger to educational standards, you’ve got another think coming.” - Geoff Pullum, Professor of Linguistics at the University of California, Santa Cruz
Thanks Dr., I appreciate your research.
I never said I though it was one way or the other. I merely stated that, to me, that that one link wasn’t convincing. I still feel that way. Even people with credentials offer opions and occasionally are even wrong.
I do not have to be more qualified than Prof. Brians to crack open my OED and report their findings.
I didn’t mean to imply that just because I had never heard it, it wasn’t true. I just stated (truthfully) I had never heard it .
Finally, I just tossed my two cents worth in. I don’t think this topic is going to change the world, but it is, apparently, very important to you. So, sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Just curious, why wasn’t this addressed to all who disagreed with you?
I, also, had always thought the correct word was “thing,” and am glad to find out the straight dope.
Thank you for providing that link. I have printed their take on affect/effect, which I had asked about in this thread posted earlier this week. The “controversy” at class still hasn’t died, and I am bringing Strunk and White’s book, another printout of the thread, an e-mail from a college writing lab professor, and the definition provided by your link to class tomorrow.
No problem. It literally took less than 5 minutes to dig up the cites through an Alta Vista “another+think+coming” search.
Yep, you looked at a valid cite that someone posted and dismissed it out of hand without offering any cites for your rebuttal. Bad form. In the GQ forum we generally like to deal with facts.
But until you can refute the experts, don’t dismiss them.
I’ve gone over this thread numerous times and still can’t find where you quoted the OED.
It’s not the topic I value, it’s the accuracy of the information. You’ll find alot of folks here who get bridled when opinion is offered as fact, especially when the question has been answered. The whole “fighting ignorance” thing, and all.
BTW, my feelings never get hurt here. Folks who allow that to happen don’t generally hang around long.
Good question. I thought about making a list but your post so eloquently encompassed all of the elements I intended to address that I just went with it.
I know you’re new here and it is not my intention to sour you on the SDMB. You do need to know, however, that if you bring forth an assertion in the GQ or GD forums, you need to be ready and able to back them up.
Isn’t it site? As in website? I understand that you’re “citing” your reference, but when you’re putting in links and such, shouldn’t it be site? Just asking, 'cuz I see it spelled both ways very often. Thanks!
Referring to a source is a “cite.” A place to visit on the Web is a “site.” Thus, it is possible to cite a site. Not that he needed me to back him up, but Dr. Jackson’s usage is correct.
