Let me try that out a few times…
…
Nope. Still fun to say.
Think
dammit
Good analysis. I think you’ve nailed it.
A joke falling flat with a sort of sad sorry plop that doesn’t even amount to a good pratfall.
Then along came the internet to completely mess up the stats with every buffoon and his dog posting “thing” “thing” “thing” “duck” “thing” “duck”…
-
Nimrod for idiot is not the Beavis and Butthead generation but the Bugs Bunny one.
-
“Thing” is the usual way I’ve always heard it, and always “you got another …” and never “you’ve got …” When I heard “think coming” I always thought someone was trying to be cutsie in some way. And coming off dumb.
-
Both apparently go way back and neither seems to really have a clear claim as “the right way” either by virtue of original phrase or by being overwhelmingly used.
Or did you hear about the guy who was remodelling his bathroom and didn’t realise his wife had changed the plans to include his ‘n’ hers vanities? He thought he was all finished, but he had another sink coming…
No, no, no. His wife’s fickleness caused him to have another affair, so he had another fling coming.
You have another think coming? NO! Maybe “You have another thought” coming, but a think? I can’t give you a think.
And of course there was the fur breeder who staged mass breedings who had another mink coming.
Or the tenor who was called back for an encore and had another sing coming?
Want to have a think about that one?
Think I had too many beans tonight? You’ve got another stink coming.
Maybe you should sit over there in the corner and have a good, long think about what you just said.
NM
The expression is about an erroneous way of thinking, so you need to think again. The first person in history who said “thing” misunderstood what he/she thought they heard.
when you have an erroneous way of thinking, you have another thing coming.
If you say it with a glottal stop, I’d say you’re saying it wrong*. All that happens is what happens with any other adjacent consonants from different words: the consonant is elongated. Since it’s a stop, and a stop only makes sound when it’s released, you do notice a pause, but it is produced by the back of the tongue against the hard palate, not by the space surrounding the vocal chords and larynx. It’s velar, not glottal.
*If you guys can say I’m using the wrong word, I can say you’re using the wrong pronunciation 
Yeah, well, I couldn’t thing of a better word. But I believe I have another drink coming.
Exactly correct. It’s an elongated [kː], the same as in Dick Clark [dɪkːlɑrk].
Personally, I don’t particularly care, but it seems to me like there’s a lot of assertions going on about the strength of the think case that just isn’t there. For one, there’s an earlier cite by it, for around the same time, you’re talking 1898 and 1906, from what I recall seeing, which are contemporary cites from over a hundred years ago. It seems to me that the idiom likely rose around that time, but probably was spoken first, so that it was written one way or the other first doesn’t really seem all that convincing. It also seems to me that, regardless of how it may have started, when spoken, they sound almost exactly the same. If I were to say “think coming” I’d not have the glottal stop, I’d slur it together to sound like “thin coming” or “think umming”. If I say “thing coming” I’d even mostly downplay the “ing” sound. So it makes sense that it would arise and confused contemporously.
I also think the idea that “thing” doesn’t make sense, is a non-start. I’ve always understood the phrase to mean, you might expect one thing, but something different is going to happen. Even given that think can be used as a noun, whatever it is, it’s a thing, if it’s not a thing, it’s nothing. It may or may not fit with the flow as much in your estimation, but it definitely makes sense.
Finally, this whole idea that it’s some kind of really clever joke, personally, strikes me as a post hoc explanation, in the way that a lot of people think fuck or a number of other words originated as acronyms. Think just sounds a little archaic and I think that if think is the original, it’s just because that’s more or less how people spoke, it quickly got confused for thing, and then nit-pickers today sort of discovered the hidden joke that may never have been intended at all. It’s not like it’s come from an authoritative source like Shakespeare where we can make pretty good judgments about the subtle humor he may have intended.
And like the aforementioned “head over heals in love” or “could care less”, why would people snicker or think someone is ignorant? I KNOW “head over heals in love” is wrong and sounds dumb, but it incapsulates and idea that isn’t so easily expressed in nearly as few words. I do tend to refuse to use “could care less” and will say “couldn’t care less”, since it is actually correct and expresses the idea as concisely, unless I am making a joke like “I could care less… but not by much”.
So, in general, it just seems like there’s a lot of certainty about a pretty odd thing we really have no reason to have so much certainty about, can’t really be settled, and only matters if it’s written anyway, which it rarely is.