# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/81 "2004-06-14T11:53:12Z")
> [@Futile Gesture](#): > > How about if I said: “then you’ve obviously not thought the consequences through”. or “then oranges are sweeter than lemons.” Are they wrong? They’re plainly not ‘another think coming’, but when did that become the only acceptable way to complete the sentence? No, it wouldn’t be “wrong” as such, but it would be a non sequitur (in the second example, at any rate). I am still amazed that those who always thought it was “thing” didn’t have a massive :smack: moment when they first heard it was “think”. It’s like when I was younger (like very young - five or six) hearing what I thought was “I must’ve met, he’s not that bright” (for instance), and getting a big jolt of realisation when I realised it was “must admit”. Wow! NOW I understand! How anyone can not “get it” after all the explanations on this thread really still stumps me. But … must … not … let … it … get … to … me … On the plus side, **Cicada** and I have our fingers on the editorial pencils, so we can strike out this ignorance as and when we come across it in our line of work 😛 ---
**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 14, 2004, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/82 "2004-06-14T14:47:02Z")
> [@Colophon](#): > > On the plus side, **Cicada** and I have our fingers on the editorial pencils, so we can strike out this ignorance as and when we come across it in our line of work 😛 Surely you’d leave it in a novel, say, where the character speaking the line is _actually_ saying “another thing coming”? Especially if the character were from the Southern U.S., for example? On the other hand, if I were writing an article for a British or Australian magazine, I’d appreciate your insight in this matter. > [@Colophon](#): > > I am still amazed that those who always thought it was “thing” didn’t have a massive :wally moment when they first heard it was “think”. _(Cripes … I have to appeal to authority again …)_ What of those Merriam-Webster dictionary editors? 60% of them favored “another thing”, remember? You write off your peers with a wave of your hand? Come on … that is meaningful at some level. BTW, exactly on what basis is “another think” correct? Having earlier citations is not enough, IMHO. If all that mattered is that one usage came earlier, then why do we accept, for example, the spelling of “shower” as _s-h-o-w-e-r_ and not _s-h-o-u-r-e_, as it appears in _The Canterbury Tales_? > [@Cicada2003](#): > > I am an authority … (degrees, continuing education in the form of reading 500 books a year, plus magazines, scored 98% on AP editing test, currently working as an editor) You are obviously an authority on the stylistic variations of the written English language, and also perhaps of public speech. However, that doesn’t confer upon you the power to decide what is correct or not in other contexts. You have no say in what goes on between various speakers and listeners across the English speaking world – where the living, breathing, and changing English language truly exists. ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/83 "2004-06-14T15:13:42Z")
That last post was failry tongue-in-cheek. Regardless of my own personal views on the matter, I do accept that millions of people do use the “thing” version. Sure, it surprised me – having _never_ heard that form before seeing a previous SDMB thread about it – and I really don’t like it, but then there’s lots of English usage that I don’t like. I’m not entirely prescriptivist in my approach to the language – as you say, we’d all be writing like Chaucer otherwise – and if a writer insisted on “thing” then I’d probably let it slide. However, I am having trouble seeing the difference between allowing this and allowing, say, “should of”, which nobody seems to argue is acceptable. Based on what I read on the internet, it appears that “should of” is used at least as widely as “another thing coming”. At what point will this be deemed “correct usage” as well? Are editors doomed to be a dying breed as we casually accept the maxim that “If an English-speaker has written it, it must be proper English”? [Disclaimer: I have not proofread this post. Gaudere’s Law may apply.] ---
**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 14, 2004, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/84 "2004-06-14T15:34:48Z")
> [@Colophon](#): > > I am still amazed that those who always thought it was “thing” didn’t have a massive :smack: moment when they first heard it was “think”. Far more likely they have a “oh, that’s an interesting play on words” moment. Why would they assume that this is the _correct_ way? When you hear a pun, do you immedietely assume that it’s the punning phrase that’s right, and the way you’ve always said it is wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/85 "2004-06-14T15:35:12Z")
Yep, Gaudere strikes right away. And I missed this: > [@bordelond](#): > > BTW, exactly on what basis is “another think” correct? Having earlier citations is not enough, IMHO… I’ve explained why “another think” is correct (IMHO, of course…) until I was blue in the fingers. The whole idiom is obviously constructed around a verbal joke which some people seem to miss. It’s a deliberately “clever-clever” thing to say. I’d love to be able to find out who first said it, but I have a feeling that would be impossible to dig up. ---
**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 14, 2004, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/86 "2004-06-14T15:40:50Z")
> [@Colophon](#): > > However, I am having trouble seeing the difference between allowing this and allowing, say, “should of”, which nobody seems to argue is acceptable. Based on what I read on the internet, it appears that “should of” is used at least as widely as “another thing coming”. At what point will this be deemed “correct usage” as well? Are editors doomed to be a dying breed as we casually accept the maxim that “If an English-speaker has written it, it must be proper English”? There’s a couple of points to make here: 1. The difference of what flies in spoken English and what flies in most written English is largely being overlooked, though it is of tantamount importance to this whole discussion. 2. People have been using the words “correct” and “incorrect” in this thread, when the question is actually a matter of style dependent on context, not one of chimerical “correctness”. 3. In most writing for mass consumption, “should of” will jar and distract the reader, whether they be American, English, Australian, Jamaican, Indian, etc. “Another thing coming”, on the other hand, will pass muster with a great many (esp. American) readers. Having said that, it is still a matter of style, not correctness. Choosing how to express a thought to an audience requires an understanding of that audience’s expectations. If one is expressing the though orally, many audiences will accept “should of”, making it “correct” _in situ_. 4. Editors will always be needed to be arbiters of style. Communicators will always need help in choosing the proper style of expression to best reach their audience. ---
**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 14, 2004, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/87 "2004-06-14T15:46:30Z")
> [@Futile Gesture](#): > > do you immedietely assume Or even, immediately. :rolleyes: ---
**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 14, 2004, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/88 "2004-06-14T16:17:09Z")
FWIW, I posted “thing vs. think” polls on two other boards I frequent. Both boards’s memberships are nearly exclusively American. [Poll 1](http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=83829&st=0&#entry1400733) [Poll 2](http://www.saintsreport.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1094229#post1094229) So far, “another think” is getting trounced. However, “another think coming” is not completely unknown. ---
**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 14, 2004, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/89 "2004-06-14T16:21:08Z")
> [@Colophon](#): > > I’ve explained why “another think” is correct (IMHO, of course…) until I was blue in the fingers. The whole idiom is obviously constructed around a verbal joke which some people seem to miss. But this explanation does not take into account the respective audiences hearing or reading the expression. Actually, the origin of the expression is pretty much irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![rjk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed655f/32.png) [@rjk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjk)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/90 "2004-06-14T16:22:04Z")
While I must agree that usage makes the final decision on correctness, I don’t have to like it. I, of course, use the expression the One True Way: thin **k**. Many people above and in the Pit thread have claimed that the thin **g** version makes more sense than the version with thin **k**. I suppose it is technically more grammatical to use thin **g** if you look at only that single clause, but that makes the whole sentence incoherent. The conditional (“If you think…”) is clearly about the _thought_, so the consequent should also be about thoughts ("another _thin **k** _) to maintain a parallel construction. Using thin **g** in the consequent means you’re talking about _objects_ (even if they’re abstract). ---
**Author:** ![vd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b19c9b/32.png) [@vd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vd)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/91 "2004-06-14T16:50:08Z")
Thank God for this thread! I’ve always wondered why I had “another thin gumming”. ---
**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 14, 2004, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/92 "2004-06-14T16:51:22Z")
> [@rjk](#): > > Many people above and in the Pit thread have claimed that the thin **g** version makes more sense than the version with thin **k**. I suppose it is technically more grammatical to use thin **g** if you look at only that single clause, but that makes the whole sentence incoherent. The conditional (“If you think…”) is clearly about the _thought_, so the consequent should also be about thoughts ("another _thin **k** _) to maintain a parallel construction. Using thin **g** in the consequent means you’re talking about _objects_ (even if they’re abstract). Many people are going off on tangents. None of this matters. There’s no way to logically prove that one version over the other is correct. ---
**Author:** ![Mister\_Rik](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mister_rik/32/491_2.png) [@Mister\_Rik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mister_Rik)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/93 "2004-06-14T16:59:34Z")
One reason I’ve always thought “think” to be incorrect is the context in which I’ve seen it written. I’ve usually seen it included in dialogue in fiction, and always coming from a character who appears to have a less than stellar command of the English language, or with a thick regional accent or dialect. For example, Superman’s friend Bibbo. Bibbo lives somewhere in Metropolis’ lower-income part of town, and if I recall correctly, he used to be a petty criminal. He also seems to be uneducated. So let’s imagine that Bibbo is confronting a group of thugs who believe they can take on Superman. Bibbo might say something like this: “If youse punks thinks youse can take Sooperman, youse’s got anudder think comin’!” Every time I have seen the “think” variant, it has been spoken by a similar type of character. Somebody else mentioned “butt naked” vs. “butt naked”. That reminds me of the word “buttload”. For years, I assumed that “buttload” was just a more polite and slightly more amusing way of saying “shitload”. Then I found out that a “butt” is a sort of sled (sledge?) for hauling cargo. Hence, the driver of a fully-loaded butt would be hauling a buttload of stuff. So “buttload” means roughly the same thing as “truckload” or “trainload”. ---
**Author:** ![Xerxes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/d2c977/32.png) [@Xerxes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xerxes)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/94 "2004-06-14T17:04:43Z")
> [@bordelond](#): > > Many people are going off on tangents. None of this matters. There’s no way to logically prove that one version over the other is correct. Perhaps not, but do you accept that (due to their sounding so similar) **thing** is probably a corruption of the cited use of **think**? ---
**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 14, 2004, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/95 "2004-06-14T17:08:07Z")
> [@Xerxes](#): > > Perhaps not, but do you accept that (due to their sounding so similar) **thing** is probably a corruption of the cited use of **think**? It’s quite likely, but also unimportant. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2015, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/96 "2015-12-30T07:43:21Z")
> [@Colophon](#): > > I am still amazed that those who always thought it was “thing” didn’t have a massive :smack: moment when they first heard it was “think”. Why? The first time I saw it in print I just assumed that in addition to ballsing up the phrase, the writer did so poorly in English class they didn’t know enough to use thought as a noun rather than think. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2015, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/97 "2015-12-30T09:12:27Z")
I thing - therefore iyam ---
**Author:** ![si\_blakely](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d9b06d/32.png) [@si\_blakely](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/si_blakely)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2015, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/98 "2015-12-30T10:06:04Z")
I like to think I am pretty well read, and I don’t think I have **ever** seen “another think coming” in print - the construction utterly grates on me. You’d have another thing coming if you thought I’d ever use the phrase. You live and learn (but not assimilate). ---
**Author:** ![Isilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@Isilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isilder)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2015, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/99 "2015-12-30T10:54:15Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > I often hear the expression “You’ve got another thing coming.” However, I’m fairly convinced that the correct expression is “You’ve got another THINK coming.” The expression is a deliberately ungrammatical way of saying “think again.” Using the word “thing” makes no sense at all. “thing” makes just as much as much sense, as the full sentence has the more basic meaning of "If you think , X, events in the future will provide more substantial or “obvious” information. The thing will be the proof that is in the pudding, or the hatchling(s), or lack of, from the eggs. Actually when the events provide more OBVIOUS information, then “Think” becomes absurd … the expression is used for very obvious events. “If you think that bridge will hold that train, you have another think coming.” ?Think ? Really there’s not going to be much thinking about the collapsed bridge is there ? Well anyway the origins may be “think” but to cater for modern life, where things are more numerous than thinks… its changed. ---
**Author:** ![Isilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@Isilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isilder)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2015, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779/100 "2015-12-30T11:00:15Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > So what’s the first “thing”? If there’s “another thing coming” there has to be a first thing, right? Is it the set of everything that I have anticipated? True, but pedantic… the expressions don’t usually stick to grammar and preserving the “subject” so pedantically. The first thing is the idea that the person had thought, as its always “if thats what you THINK” (or guess.) … The second thing coming is then the actual event, perhaps the train bridge failure, or the court decision ,or the bank statement. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-think-coming/249779.md?page=6)