Yes, that’s why regardless of how it originated, the most common usage today is “thing”. The phrase’s purpose has evolved to be more threatening, and telling someone they’ll be having another think is about as threatening sounding as “there’ll be heck to pay gol’ darn it !”
All these people who are arguing that “thing” is so much more plausible or logical are just saying that because they want to defend the version that they grew up hearing.
On the other hand we “think”-ers are rational and objective enough to realize that “think” is so much more plausible and logical, and that this would be true even if we hypothetically had been unfortunate enough to grow up hearing “thing”.
“Another think coming” at least makes sense, for all that it’s grammatically garbled. You can’t say the same foe “another thing coming.”
SOME people will research ANYTHING, if they think it’ll get them out of getting an honest job…
“If you think that, you have a thing coming to you”?? That makes even less sense.
That is exactly what the “thing” folks says it means. It makes no more sense when you stick “another” in there.
News flash:
kaylasdad99 is sharing the planet with people who are wrong about things.
Follow-up special report:
There are more of them than there are of him.
Analysis:
That doesn’t mean that they’re not wrong.
Those people have another thing coming. That thing is rightness. That new thing will replace the old thing that was there before, the wrongness.
If that’s really what you think, my friend, you have another think coming.
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
“Another think coming” at least makes sense, for all that it’s grammatically garbled. You can’t say the same foe “another thing coming.”
[/QUOTE]
Of course you can: “thing” replaces the word “think” and makes the phrase much more versatile. “Another think” presents one and only one possibility: It serves the exact same purpose as the phrase “if you think x, then think again”
“Thing” adds a certain vagueness to the phrase that serves specifically to give it a menacing edge, which is completely lacking with the original “think”. The “thing” could be referring to another “think”, or possibly something much worse for the thinker.
Won’t happen. People will always gladly adopt a less linguistically perfect (and in this case even that is arguable) version of a phrase when the original version sounds lame. Most people these days wouldn’t be caught dead calling something a “think”.
Raised in Texas and the Midwest, ca. 1970s, resident in Kansas these last 20 years.
I understand all three, and recognize them as all equivalent. However, I have never used “think” as a noun, and don’t hear it being used as such by any of my family/friends/colleagues. The middle sentence (“I will have a think about it”) is something I might hear on a British TV show, e.g., or read in an article in the New York Times, but it automatically marks the speaker as Not From Here. It’s not a standard usage in my part of the world, so “another think coming” also sounds wrong.
You have another thing coming. You had something, be it a pleasant thought or a dance with the lady, but now something else is headed your way, maybe disappointment, maybe a fist. That’s how I’ve always heard and interpreted the phrase.
This is because you were raised right.
I wonder if that’s a key difference between the two camps? I’ve also always thought it was “think,” and I too, primarily read it rather than heard it. In fact, I’ve always wondered if that’s a key difference between those of us who lean toward being grammar sticklers/prescriptivists and those who don’t. I was an early reader and very shy (thus not much of a talker,) and so in childhood I experienced language primarily as a written, rater than an oral, phenomenon. It wasn’t until adulthood that I realized that for most people, it’s the other way around. For me, the ultimate underlying reality of a word was its written form, and the spoken word was an imperfect, approximate representation of that underlying reality. For me, the word “think” was the stringing together of the letters “t-h-i-n-k” on a piece of paper, and the sound made when pronouncing it was just sort of a shorthand way of communicating that written word to other people within earshot. Thus, I could never understand how people could confuse “their,” “there,” and “they’re,” because they were three completely different words!
Anyway, I’m pretty sure that I always saw it in print as “think.” And I agree with those who are saying, for all its deliberate ungrammaticality, it makes more sense that way. It’s another way of saying “if you think X, think again.” The speaker is expressing the idea that the person is somewhat foolishly holding an incorrect thought. The mishearing of it as “thing” indicates that that key connection between the two clauses of the sentence was lost on people.
Thanks.
From what you and a few other US-ians have said, it seems that “think” as a noun (in any context, not just the think_coming expression) is variable in time and space. It may have been more common in the past and has declined; it may have done so at different rates on each side of the Atlantic; or there may always have been a transatlantic difference. Certainly, now it seems that it’s a routine usage at least some parts the UK, and completely absent (although understood) in at least some parts of the US.
The empirical evidence (cites above, Johanna) is that “another think coming” was the original expression, and presumably it arose in a dialect where “think” as a noun was normal usage, so it was not as “weirdly idiomatic” as it seems to people now who do not speak a dialect that uses “think” as a noun in other contexts.
Subsequently, as “think” as a noun disappeared from some dialects (or was never there at all due to regional variation) it’s easy to see how the variants came about. “Think_coming” and “thing_coming” are pretty much indistinguishable aurally. Since there is a logical rationale for the semantics of either one, it makes sense that you would tend to “hear” the one that’s more idiomatically plausible in your dialect, and stick with it. After that, unless you saw it in writing, you might never even be aware that the other variant existed, you would just always hear it the same way.
It’s “thing”. Case closed.
Just to clarify, in case it wasn’t obvious, I made several comments parodying those who were obdurately claiming the self-evident superiority of one variant or the other.
Both variants exist. There is a logical account for either one. Either variant may seem compellingly more logically plausible, depending on (a) which you grew up hearing; (b) whether “think” as a noun is standard in your dialect.
The interesting thing is the history and prevalence of the two variants, about which an occasional genuine post crops up. But at this stage most posts seem to be latecomers proclaiming that their version is obviously and uniquely correct, and people like me taking the piss out of them.
Think and seer-up. 
This is really the only argument for “thing,” that it sounds right if that’s the version you’re accustomed to.
I also grew up hearing that version, but when I realized that it was meant to be “think,” a light clicked on and the phrase made sense in a way that it never had when I knew only “thing.”
“Think” doesn’t have to be a noun in common or standard use. English verbs nouns and nouns verbs routinely for expressions and wordplay in ways that are not used as standards in any particular dialect. You don’t have to ever have used “think” as a noun in ordinary speech to understand the wordplay of the phrase.
In a matter just as self-satisfied and ill-humored as the posts you are mocking. So it’s nothing to be proud of, really.
A bizarre and improbable theory occurs to me (surprise, surprise). When I was growing up, I had a vague notion that Germans were bad-ish people. And the Russians, bad stuff came out of Russia at the time. In those native languages, some voiced nouns at the ends of words, notable v, b, d and g sounds, become unvoiced without a change in spelling (the way “Smirnov” actually sounds like “smirnoff”). So, logically, a person from one of those dark realms would pronounce “thing” as “think”. Well, we would be having none of that.
Silly idea, yes, but not 100% groundless. 99&44/100ths, maybe.
Correct. BECAUSE THAT (AND ONLY THAT) IS WHAT THE IDIOM IS FOR!
American, if that matters. NYC, if that matters. And “think”, if that matters.
I never had any trouble understanding it, probably because (I think) I first heard as something like, “if THAT’s what he thinks…well, he just has another think coming”.