# another THINK coming **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 11, 2004, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779 "2004-06-11T04:27:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/41 "2004-06-11T15:58:53Z")
> [@tadc](#): > > I’ve lived in British Columbia/Oregon all my life, and I’ve never heard the “think” version before today. > > I’m surprised nobody’s mentioned Judas Priest yet. I’m most familiar with the expression from the song lyrics I’ve heard overplayed a thousand times on the buttrock station: > “Out there is a fortune waiting to be had > If you think I’ll let it go, you’re mad > You’ve got another thing coming” > > Then again, neither phrase is exactly common these days. People who get grammar lessons from Judas Priest have bigger problems (they also mangled “Hell Bent for Leather”) And it is “think,” no one has ever given a good explanation for what the first “thing” was - the first “think” is in the phrase. ---
**Author:** ![PetW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d2c977/32.png) [@PetW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PetW)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/42 "2004-06-11T16:11:59Z")
“could care less” gets more google his than “couldn’t care less”. ---
**Author:** ![Futile\_Gesture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f05b48/32.png) [@Futile\_Gesture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futile_Gesture)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/43 "2004-06-11T16:18:10Z")
It’s arguments like this that makes SDMB the place it is, and long may it continue. 🙂 I’ve always heard and said ‘thing’. No matter what the original expression was, neither make any real sense. So I don’t see either ‘thing’ or ‘think’ having any moral or grammatical superiority that makes them correct and the other wrong. So hardly worth worrying about. ---
**Author:** ![PetW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d2c977/32.png) [@PetW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PetW)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/44 "2004-06-11T16:31:24Z")
> [@Jomo Mojo](#): > > … > This enters a hyperphase when semiliterates who’ve never even heard the original phrase start repeating the sarcastic variant, thinging it’s the original. Thinging it’s the original? Was that intentional? ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/45 "2004-06-11T16:31:51Z")
> [@amarinth](#): > > And it is “think,” no one has ever given a good explanation for what the first “thing” was - the first “think” is in the phrase. You’re approaching this too logically, Language change does not follow logic, nor has it ever. “… another thing coming” is just an idiom as used by folks accustomed to it. … BTW, a lot of people are saying that people used to “thing” are mishearing the expression. For the record, I’ve only seen it _written_ as “… another thing coming”. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/46 "2004-06-11T16:33:50Z")
> [@Futile Gesture](#): > > No matter what the original expression was, neither make any real sense. “If you **think** you’re getting the last piece, you’ve got another **think** coming” vs. If you **think** you’re getting the last piece, you’ve got another **thing** coming" If you ask me the first one makes infinitely more sense than the second. the socond one has no logic behind it. What’s the “other thing” they’ve got coming to them. What was the _first_ “thing”. you can easily reword the forst way to rea"…then think again". I don’t see any way to adjust the second phrase so that “thing” makes any sense. ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/47 "2004-06-11T17:01:56Z")
> [@bordelond](#): > > BTW, a lot of people are saying that people used to “thing” are mishearing the expression. For the record, I’ve only seen it _written_ as “… another thing coming”. Just to keep everyone on the same page, this thread spilled over into the Pit some time ago. In [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=260982) ([post #9](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4954496&postcount=9), numbering fans) I gave a number of cites from national newspapers. A search for “another think coming” yielded 169 hits between January 2001 and the present., as against 101 for “another thing coming”, not all of which were used in this construction. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/48 "2004-06-11T17:05:18Z")
It’s **think**. For all intensive purposes\*, that’s the right phrase. 😉 \*[sub]another such screwup that drives me NUTS…[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/49 "2004-06-11T17:12:54Z")
> [@Q.E.D.](#): > > If you ask me, the first one makes infinitely more sense than the second. The second one has no logic behind it. What’s the “other thing” they’ve got coming to them. What was the _first_ “thing”. As I explained above, logic need not apply to an inherently illogical process such as linguistic change. However, your question can be answered: _“If you **think** you’re getting the last piece, you’ve got another **thing** coming”_ The first thing can be (depending on context): a) the attainment of the last piece b) the last piece The “other thing” coming to them need not be specified. It is merely something contrary to expectation. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/50 "2004-06-11T17:14:56Z")
I always heard “another thing coming”. It’s not ungrammatical or illogical – it obviously means “you have a different thing coming than the one you expect”. In fact, if it turns out that “another think coming” is, in truth, the older expression, then it sems likely to me that the reason it was supplanted is that the version with “thing” makes more sense. “Thing” is more euphonious to me, and makes more sense than the ungrammatical “think” (even if that is deliberately ungrammatical). On top of which, like most folks, I’m conservative in matters linguistic, and prefer the forms I know and grew up with. Mr. Chairman, Massachusetts votes “Yea” for “thing” – CalMeacham, who’s been watching **1776** too much lately. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/51 "2004-06-11T17:18:11Z")
> [@Colophon](#): > > Just to keep everyone on the same page, this thread spilled over into the Pit some time ago. In [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=260982) ([post #9](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4954496&postcount=9), numbering fans) I gave a number of cites from national newspapers. A search for “another think coming” yielded 169 hits between January 2001 and the present., as against 101 for “another thing coming”, not all of which were used in this construction. You forgot to lay one card on the table in this thread that you did in the other: the papers surveyed is all British. I think it’s at least anecdotally established that " … another think …" is much more established in the UK than in the US (though there are enclaves of the respective minority expressions in both nations). … I want to stop a moment to make clear that my opinion is that both versions of the idiom are equally legitimate and both have a certain logic to them (though that logic is not necessary to justify use). “Another think” is cool by me, and I am definitely not arguing that it is incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/52 "2004-06-11T17:20:06Z")
For the real masochists amongst you, [here](http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&threadm=1e12ube.19dwgjd1qojrbdN%25trio%40euronet.nl&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl2264483440d%26dq%3D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26c2coff%3D1%26selm%3D1e12ube.19dwgjd1qojrbdN%2525trio%2540euronet.nl) is a monster discussion about this issue on alt.usage.english. Sample quote: > [@](#): > > Isn’t it fun? Old fogeys like Robert > and myself know it as “think.” Young fogeys like Richard know it as > “thing.” Each is convinced they are right. Each is right – it’s just a > saying, after all. Sound familiar? And furthermore: > [@](#): > > We might be able to establish the watershed year or years. My guess is > 1960 – that people born before 1960 say “think” and people born after > 1960 say “thing.” Americans, anyway – I have no idea how this plays out > in other countries. So, who out there is an exception to this > hypothesis? People born right around 1960 may be in a transition zone. Yep, some people are adamantly in the “think” camp: > [@](#): > > I’m born in '62, and I would never have imagined remotely that any > literate person would defend “thing”. It’s as obvious an error > as “minus well” or “for all intensive purposes”. And others defend “thing” just as vehemently: > [@](#): > > This is amusing, because to me “another thing coming” makes sense, > while “another think coming” is completely nonsensical. What on earth > is a “think”, and how can it be “coming”? > > “Thing” has its usual meaning in “You’ve got another thing coming”. > > Is it possible we are talking about two different expressions here? > I don’t even know anymore. I just know I’ve never heard the “think” > version. Again, sound familiar? 😉 This guy, however, takes after my own heart: > [@](#): > > Ya know, I’m as open to acknowledging new and shifting usages as most > people, but I hate it when a vivid or colorful phrase turns sour because > people lack the wit to understand and preserve it. Sometimes you can at > least understand what’s going on – When […] Welsh > rabbit becomes Welsh rarebit, you can at least understand that the > speaker has trouble thinking of beery cheese (or it is cheesy beer?) as > “rabbit.” But “another thinG coming” in proper context (If you think > that . . . ) makes far less sense than “another thinK coming,” so a > vivid phrase is showing the first signs of what may ultimately prove to > be a fatal disease – and nothing at all is gained. > > Fight back, gang. Man the remparts. Save “another thinK coming.” It > may still not be too late. > > Bob Lieblich Amen to that! ---
**Author:** ![USCDiver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/uscdiver/32/354_2.png) [@USCDiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/USCDiver)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/53 "2004-06-11T19:38:36Z")
Man, to thing that all these years I’ve been taking it for granite that the phrase was “another thing coming.” ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/54 "2004-06-11T21:02:02Z")
The “British English” vs. the “US English” argument would go a long ways towards explaining much of the bickering. The age of the poster would have less effect, in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Hunter\_Hawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/50afbb/32.png) [@Hunter\_Hawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hunter_Hawk)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/55 "2004-06-11T21:29:25Z")
> [@bordelond](#): > > As I explained above, logic need not apply to an inherently illogical process such as linguistic change. However, your question can be answered: > > _“If you **think** you’re getting the last piece, you’ve got another **thing** coming”_ > > The first thing can be (depending on context): > > a) the attainment of the last piece > b) the last piece > > The “other thing” coming to them need not be specified. It is merely something contrary to expectation. Bad example. What about this usage?: _“If you **think** the Seahawks are going to win the Super Bowl, you’ve got another **thing** coming”_ I suppose you could say that the first “thing” is “a sense of vicarious accomplishment”–but c’mon, that’s _really_ reaching. Whereas the “another think coming” construction is admittedly not exactly grammatical, but that’s deliberate–and it’s much more logical. Oll korrect? ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/56 "2004-06-11T22:14:18Z")
> [@Hunter Hawk](#): > > Bad example. What about this usage?: > > _“If you **think** the Seahawks are going to win the Super Bowl, you’ve got another **thing** coming”_ > > I suppose you could say that the first “thing” is “a sense of vicarious accomplishment”–but c’mon, that’s _really_ reaching. Again, that there is a salient first thing isn’t the least bit important. It really isn’t … and I’m a little bemused that this tack is being pursued so vigorously. Still, even your example gives a choice of easily discernable “first thing”: a) the Seahawks b) winning the Super Bowl The “thing coming” would be either a) the _Seahawks_ won’t win the SB, or b) the Seahawks _won’t win the SB_. > [@Hunter Hawk](#): > > Whereas the “another think coming” construction is admittedly not exactly grammatical, but that’s deliberate–and it’s much more logical. Oll korrect? I do not agree that it’s any more logical. We’re definitely not in agreement. Put it like this: think of the way “another thing coming” jars you. Well, that’s how “another think coming” jars me. I would just like most folks to agree that either version is legitimate. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/57 "2004-06-11T23:12:43Z")
**Regina’s** post #37 is one of the best I’ve seen in awhile. Brilliant. ---
**Author:** ![Hunter\_Hawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/50afbb/32.png) [@Hunter\_Hawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hunter_Hawk)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/58 "2004-06-12T01:58:11Z")
> [@bordelond](#): > > Again, that there is a salient first thing isn’t the least bit important. It really isn’t … and I’m a little bemused that this tack is being pursued so vigorously. It’s being pursued so vigorously because if there isn’t a “salient first thing”, the phrase is completely deflated. This is a “lightning” vs. “lightning bug” type of issue–if you’re gonna misuse the language, the least you could do is misuse it _well_. > [@](#): > > I would just like most folks to agree that either version is legitimate. I think we can all conclude that _that_ ain’t gonna happen. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![jastu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/43a26b/32.png) [@jastu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jastu)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/59 "2004-06-12T06:16:40Z")
Back to part 2 of the OP. > [@tim314](#): > > (2) Are there any other cases you can find where the incorrect expression gets more hits than the correct one? Butt naked - 2,800,000 hits on Google Buck naked - just 283,000 ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/60 "2004-06-12T06:27:06Z")
> [@jastu](#): > > Butt naked - 2,800,000 hits on Google > > Buck naked - just 283,000 You get more accurate results if you put quotes around it. When you do that, you get: “Butt naked”: 228,000 hits “Buck naked”: 74,900 hits “Buck naked” “Butt naked”: 2,250 hits Still a big difference, though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779.md?page=4)