@kayT
Whatever you do, don’t bring up the “correct” way to install toilet paper. The clear majority of these benighted fools actually believe loose end away from the wall is correct.
Many even persist in describing the two possibilities as paper coming off the top or bottom of the roll rather than the correct terminology which is paper hanging down the front or the back of the roll.
Cecil’s claim that we only have a few total dipsticks was disproven by that little donnybrook I tell’s ya! 
“Have a think” is perfectly understandable to Americans, but it has the feel of wordplay rather than straight employment of literal/sober/serious/neutral/non-joking vocabulary. Like “Let’s have a look-see/gander/dekko/peep” as opposed to simply “Let’s have a look.” It’s not that Americans will think you’re joking. In fact, because it doesn’t seem like you’re joking, the jocular construction will seem incongruous and cheesy.
Of course, when it comes to idiomatic English, nothing has to be logical or make literal sense, of course (see, famously, “head over heels,” which really should be "heels over head [and, apparently, originally was.]) Like I said, I grew up in the “thing” camp (and that’s still the expression I use), but the evidence, for me, seems to sway towards “think” as being the original version of the phrase, and then being corrupted into “thing.” That said, “thing” is how people say it around here, so that’s the version I use. I don’t think about it, because it’s an idiom, and it means what people understand it to mean.
Hmm. You now seem to have gone beyond describing different dialects to an assertion that Americans are so parochial that they don’t realize that British usage is just different sometimes. Maybe some are like that, but it hasn’t been my general experience living here.
In any event, I’ll take what you say at face value, and perhaps avoid ever saying something like “Since your entire family just died, we had better have a think about the best place for the funeral.”
It’s quite common to understand that different dialects are … Different … But still have some features of them strike one as odd.
And certainly there are many sectors of American society that are extremely parochial. I’m sure it’s not going out on a limb to say that this describes much of the world.
Judas Priest sang it, I liked it, that settles it.
I am ready to concede that I was probably wrong, thanks mainly to Johanna’s research.
I am familiar enough with etymologies and historical linguistics (for an entire year, my bedtime reading was Calvert Watkins’ Dictionary of PIE Roots) to know that, when there are two variants of a word or expression (usually in an informal register), the “jokey” variant is usually newer. This is somewhat akin to how “jokey” proposed etymologies are nearly always simply wrong – e.g., “sparrowgrass --> asparagus” or the abominable “For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge --> you-know-what.” (I don’t mean to sound snobbish, but it’s easy to tell which Dopers are untutored in how languages evolve, by their belief in such nonsense).
But in this case, it seems my educated instincts were wrong. The joke really did come first, and was later morphed into an equally “logical” variant, one phonetically identical in normal speech by most speakers (thanks to the initial phoneme in “coming”) as well as “easier on the brain” because it didn’t require converting a verb into a noun.
Mea culpa.
My suspicion - for which I have no proof - is that many Americans, upon hearing “I’ll have a think about”, will think that you’re actually saying “I’ll have to think about it”, and that for some reason you’re dropping your T (a habit, incidentally, common in certain British dialects).
Right you are. Which is why I carefully chose the phrases to search on, hopefully to exclude false positives like that.
Your thinking was logically sound. The problem with folk etymologies is that they try too hard to make sense, which was the situation here too. The great thing about wit is knowing when to let go of logic, for which the innate syntax of language is well suited, making perfectly correct grammar while fucking around with the meaning. (“Colorless green ideas sleep furiously” and “Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana” are two favorite examples.) Great book, by the way. If you can, try to find a copy of An Indo-European Comparative Dictionary (1987) by Stuart E. Mann, published in Germany but written in English.
In an ambiguous case like this, it’s difficult for prescriptivists to prescribe. It’s one thing to object, “it’s have run, dammit, not* have ran*”, the former having lengthy precedents in formal discourse. But in an expression that’s mainly colloquial, there’s really no such basis either way. To me another thing coming seems correct because that’s the way I first heard it, but on considering it as objectively as possible, “think” sounds almost equally suitable.
It occurred to me earlier today that another thing coming could easily become another think coming through phonetic assimilation. While the phonetic context isn’t exactly parallel, it’s very much like what often happens when the phrase have to is pronounced /hæf tu/. In that case, the /v/ in have is transformed into its unvoiced counterpart /f/, because it is influenced by the voiceless /t/ in the word to.
Thank you, Johnanna – I’ll check it out.
Also, the book I meant to mention wasn’t Watkins – that doesn’t take a year to read – but rather Carl Darling Bucks’s Dictionary of IE Synonyms, which traces cognates in ALL IE languages (except Tocharian), and is organized semantically rather than alphabetically.
I’ve always heard it as “thing.” Never encountered “think” until this thread.
Well if Martha and Grant say so, it must be so.
I will, graciously, allow that “another think coming” was the original phrasing, but as is true with all first drafts, editing is called for. “another thing coming” is clearly the superior version of the phrase and the wording truly intelligent people use.
Oh yeah. I had some fun romps through that in the university library reference department when I was working on my master’s degree.
What you suggest could come about through fortition: /ŋk/ > /ŋkk/. Probably less likely, though, than if /g/ occurred at the end of “thing” (*/ŋgk/ > /ŋkk/) but there’s no /g/ there; the <ng> stands for a voiced nasal sound /ŋ/. More likely is the lenition of /ŋkk/ > /ŋk/, which is what has happened in this case.
If so it would rule out the possibility of “thing” having come first.
If I can think of a fortition counterexample, I’ll bring it to the discussion.
I’ve never heard anyone say “think” coming.
Yeah, this - the “thing” in question won’t be something pleasant.
If that were true, it would just be a thing, not another thing.
Southern Michigan, '50s and '60s. Raised by a mother from Florida, '10s and '20s.
Think. The first time I ever heard it***** as “thing” was three years ago, in an online forum discussion (possibly here).
The WordReference Forums have an 18-page thread here, should anyone want to wade through it. 
For those who haven’t heard the “think” construction, it’s also quite possible that you have but didn’t notice it because the difference is so subtle (/ŋk/ vs /ŋkk/). I grew up with “thing” and just always assumed everyone said “thing” in the phrase, until one day I saw the “think” variation in print, probably somewhere near my late high school/early college years. As soon as I learned there were two variations, I noticed that some people did, indeed, use the “think” construction. Until then, my brain must’ve just “auto-corrected” or simply not heard the difference.