# Common mispellings that seem to be taking over. **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [June 22, 2007, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-mispellings-that-seem-to-be-taking-over/409058 "2007-06-22T21:53:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-mispellings-that-seem-to-be-taking-over/409058/101 "2007-06-25T01:07:12Z")
[QUOTE=scotandrsn] I’m afraid my copy is in a box awaiting completion of renovations on my home office. Could you give the paragraph in which it’s used? [/quote] Sorry, my copy isn’t handy either. I was citing it from memory. I was struck when I saw the phrase used there in light of the discussions we’ve had about it on these boards. I’ll not re-read the novel just to find the phrase again. Particularly when I gave you an online cite dating to 1937. > [@](#): > > Your cite is second-hand, and does not give the actual OED source. It also suggests that the OED does not address the phrase, “another thing coming” at all, rather than having evidence of “think”'s priority. The OED is available online only as a subscription service. [I invite you to sign up.](http://www.oed.com/subscribe/) (@ $29.95/mo.) By the way, it is my understanding that the current OED _does_ cite “another thing coming” – _ **as a misapprehension of “another think coming.”** _ > [@](#): > > Supplanting, nothing. SupplanTED, and long ago, if indeed it did. I’ve already provided a repeatable experiment whereby you can demonstrate for yourself that no one seems to be making use of “think” other than your fellow travellers, trying to Orwell the rest of us into thinking that we’ve heard something else all these years. What, exactly, do you think a google search proves? Googling “I could care less” yields 1,060,000 hits. Googling “I couldn’t care less” yields 655,000 hits. Shall we go with majority rule on that one, too? Besides which, as I keep pointing out, I am not arguing _current_ usage. I readily acknowledge that “another thing coming” is a common and widely accepted usage _today_. I am only pointing out that it was not the _original_ usage. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-mispellings-that-seem-to-be-taking-over/409058/102 "2007-06-25T01:09:13Z")
[QUOTE=spoke-] The OED apparently has an earlier example, [from 1937](http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxyouhav.html). Do you have any evidence of an earlier usage for “another _thing_ coming”? [/QUOTE] Well, I did a little bit of your work for you. Another site lists the actual OED source. Guess what? It’s the journal American Speech, volume XII. 317. They give a definition of the phrase. So in other words, the collective of linguists who wish to claim that “another think coming” is a common phrase with a claim to being first, cite as their precendent…another collective of linguists making the claim that “another think coming” is a common phrase. Your argument has eaten itself. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-mispellings-that-seem-to-be-taking-over/409058/103 "2007-06-25T01:13:48Z")
[QUOTE=scotandrsn] Another site lists the actual OED source. Guess what? It’s the journal American Speech, volume XII. 317. [/QUOTE] Do you have a link to this “other site”? ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-mispellings-that-seem-to-be-taking-over/409058/104 "2007-06-25T01:20:21Z")
[QUOTE=spoke-] Do you have a link to this “other site”? [/QUOTE] [http://ekesobriquet.livejournal.com/](http://ekesobriquet.livejournal.com/) > [@](#): > > I followed an interesting survey which predictably became a heated derisionfest. > > The survey was a thread with the following question: > > Which is the correct saying? > You’ve got another think coming! > or > You’ve got another thing coming! > > My first thought was that I have never seen the “think” version until that point, last night. Of course the impulse is “that can’t be right.” But, I’ve been into phrase and word origins long enough that I decided to go with neutrality and read through the discussion. > > Two separate people posted this OED entry: > 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. > > I found this link: > [http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/thing.html](http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/thing.html) > > In the end I found that the version I’d never heard, with “think,” was the original form. It has proponents to be found online that complain of those using “thing.” Neither is ultimately “correct” to a linguist. Usage across all speakers includes acceptance of both forms, so both are acceptable. These sorts of things crop up often in any dialect of any language. Taking sides doesn’t really help as language is to be mished and mashed to meet the will of any people using it to communicate. ---
**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-mispellings-that-seem-to-be-taking-over/409058/105 "2007-06-25T01:23:13Z")
Here’s info from the online OED. The cite for “think” from 1937 is correct. Interesting stuff from the entry for “thing”: > [@](#): > > DRAFT ADDITIONS JUNE 2007 > > … > > - to have another thing coming [arising from misapprehension of to have another think coming s.v. THINK n. 2b] = to have another think coming s.v. THINK n. 2b. > 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. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-mispellings-that-seem-to-be-taking-over/409058/106 "2007-06-25T01:26:17Z")
[QUOTE=Heloise] No, it’s not. > **[LANGUAGE CHECK: Just Deserts](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/just-deserts-meaning/)** > > Does a person who gets what he deserves receive his 'just desserts'? [/QUOTE] Well, there you go, I’ve been educated a little. I later remembered I wanted to complain about “mute point” but someone got that one in the meantime. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-mispellings-that-seem-to-be-taking-over/409058/107 "2007-06-25T01:30:12Z")
**scotandrsn** , it sounds like your cite agrees with me: that “think” was the original usage. (Note that I am not arguing that it is the “correct” usage.) ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-mispellings-that-seem-to-be-taking-over/409058/108 "2007-06-25T01:30:24Z")
[Here’s another page where the OED 1937 reference is mentioned.](http://examinedlife.typepad.com/johnbelle/2005/03/youve_got_anoth.html) Very interesting comment post about 1/5th of the way down the page, where someone named Richard Zach claims to find in the 2005 draft additions of the OED: > [@](#): > > thing, n. to have another thing coming [arising from misapprehension of to have another think coming s.v. THINK n. 2b] = to have another think coming s.v. THINK n. 2b. _**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.**_ (emphasis mine) Unless it can be shown that the August 8th edition of the NY Herald contained no such phrase, I say: advantage: “another thing coming” ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-mispellings-that-seem-to-be-taking-over/409058/109 "2007-06-25T01:34:13Z")
[QUOTE=scotandrsn] Unless it can be shown that the August 8th edition of the NY Herald contained no such phrase, I say: advantage: “another thing coming” [/QUOTE] Well, the OED disagrees with you. The entry clearly says that the “thing” usage arose as a misapprehension of “think.” Take it up with those guys. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-mispellings-that-seem-to-be-taking-over/409058/110 "2007-06-25T01:39:05Z")
[QUOTE=spoke-] Well, the OED disagrees with you. The entry clearly says that the “thing” usage arose as a misapprehension of “think.” Take it up with those guys. [/QUOTE] I’m not really concerned with their personal opinion, which their own sources show they have no basis for. The earliest written reference they have for “another think coming” is 1937. The earliest written reference they have for “another thing coming” is 1919. So what is the evidence that the latter evolved from the former, is my question at this point? ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-mispellings-that-seem-to-be-taking-over/409058/111 "2007-06-25T01:47:38Z")
Well yeah, but the 1937 reference is from linguists, while the 1919 reference is from some anonymous celebrity gossip hound. Who you gonna trust, a linguist or Mary Hart? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Fern\_Forest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/71c47a/32.png) [@Fern\_Forest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fern_Forest)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-mispellings-that-seem-to-be-taking-over/409058/112 "2007-06-25T01:48:00Z")
[QUOTE=spoke-] Googling “I could care less” yields 1,060,000 hits. Googling “I couldn’t care less” yields 655,000 hits. Shall we go with majority rule on that one, too? [/QUOTE] There was a doper who said he came across a possibly original source. He reported the full quote as “I know naught and could care less” meaning he knew nothing and cared even less then that. Annoyingly the doper never actually gave us the source where it came from. I’m not sure whether to file it under “14 k of g in a f p d” or “That’s the beauty of it, it doesn’t do anything.” ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-mispellings-that-seem-to-be-taking-over/409058/113 "2007-06-25T09:46:45Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] I see no reason to believe that Pete came from pity, as opposed to being simply a filler that someone grabbed. “For \<~\> sake” has included heaven’s, God’s, Sweet Jesus’s, pity, gosh, and probably a few more over the years. A clear indication that “for pity’s sake” was the most prevalent exclamation in 1917 and that it had been thoroughly replaced by “for Pete’s sake” by 1925 might make a stronger claim, but I don’t see that the pity==\>Pete claim has much to support it (especially in light of Quinlon’'s own observations about “for the love of Mike/Pete.” [/QUOTE] I agree with this. It’s a shame Etymonline doesn’t have individual citations for its claims, because this is what it has to say under ‘sake’: > [@](#): > > Much of the word’s original meaning has been taken over by case, cause, and it survives largely in phrases for the sake of (c.1225) and for \_\_\_\_\_\_\_'s sake (c.1300, originally for God’s sake) > **[Search 'sake' on etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=sake)** > > Search results for 'sake' on etymonline There’s a huge disparity between the dates being suggested here and precise ones Quinion gives, so I’d love to know what the evidence was for the earlier dating. Also, I have a problem with his slightly unscientific determination to completely separate ‘Pete’ from ‘Peter’ in order to fully disprove the folk etymology. It’s perfectly possible that one came from the other without Michelangelo having anything to do with it. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-mispellings-that-seem-to-be-taking-over/409058/114 "2007-06-25T10:23:42Z")
Having never friggn heard OF, let alone heard, “you have another thing coming” before opening up this page, may I humbly suggest that: a) “another think coming” is more logical to follow “if you think…” b) 1919 newspaper people were far from infallible in matters of orthography. c) the only time it makes sense to say you “have another thing coming” is if you have a piece of merchandise on backorder. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Gadai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@An\_Gadai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Gadai)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-mispellings-that-seem-to-be-taking-over/409058/115 "2007-06-25T10:39:47Z")
Is the thing/think distinction regional? I’ve never heard “another think coming” in my life. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-mispellings-that-seem-to-be-taking-over/409058/116 "2007-06-25T11:02:50Z")
I think that misspellings are more often than not simply typos . And if even if they are not, they are not “TAKING OVER” as the OP suggests. What is the implication? That certain groups of conspirators are trying to change the way we spell? The umbrage that certain people take at misspellings makes me wonder if if they care about other things that are really more important: is someone on the internet typing"perscritpion" more important than Darfor or Iraq? I personally don’t care that much. Okay: so she or he didn’t spell a word right. I still get her or his idea; that’s what matters. “Don’t sweat the small things”–to use a cliche. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-mispellings-that-seem-to-be-taking-over/409058/117 "2007-06-25T11:59:30Z")
Also, Britain was an island that got invaded by various people (the Anlgo-Saxons, the Romans, and the Norman-French). Few people could write at that time, and so people in general spoke the languages in the most natural way of their native counties. But because few could write (usually only the clergy) the spelling stayed the same, but the pronuncion didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-mispellings-that-seem-to-be-taking-over/409058/118 "2007-06-25T15:15:13Z")
[QUOTE=An Gadaí] Is the thing/think distinction regional? I’ve never heard “another think coming” in my life. [/QUOTE] Maybe, 'cos I’ve never heard it differently. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Gadai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@An\_Gadai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Gadai)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2007, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-mispellings-that-seem-to-be-taking-over/409058/119 "2007-06-26T01:39:00Z")
[QUOTE=guizot] I think that misspellings are more often than not simply typos . And if even if they are not, they are not “TAKING OVER” as the OP suggests. What is the implication? That certain groups of conspirators are trying to change the way we spell? The umbrage that certain people take at misspellings makes me wonder if if they care about other things that are really more important: is someone on the internet typing"perscritpion" more important than Darfor or Iraq? I personally don’t care that much. Okay: so she or he didn’t spell a word right. I still get her or his idea; that’s what matters. “Don’t sweat the small things”–to use a cliche. [/QUOTE] I didn’t begin this thread as a rant about misspellings. I’m interested in seeing what I know to be typos such as the two I cited becoming so prevalent that they may overtake the earlier spellings. I didn’t imply there were conspirators making this happen. It’s the natural evolution of the language. Your comment on Darfur and Iraq might be valid had I posted this in Great Debates or General Questions but thankfully the name of this section of the messageboard is **Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share**. ---
**Author:** ![ASAKMOTSD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@ASAKMOTSD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASAKMOTSD)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2007, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-mispellings-that-seem-to-be-taking-over/409058/120 "2007-06-26T01:47:55Z")
[QUOTE=Noelq] I came in here to post that. The word is THROUGH, dammit! Thru is a poetic contraction! Gah! [/QUOTE] THRU is COBOL syntax… 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-mispellings-that-seem-to-be-taking-over/409058.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-mispellings-that-seem-to-be-taking-over/409058.md?page=7)