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.
The OED is available online only as a subscription service. I invite you to sign up. (@ $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.”
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.
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.
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:
(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”
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?
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?
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.”
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’:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
