Another think coming

[cimorene]

Listen, people.

It's not "If you think ___, you've got another thing coming". It's "If you think __, you've got another think coming." Get it? See how that works? The word "think" appears in both places! As if to suggest that the approaching think is going to replace the previous think which was in error! See how it even (gasp!) makes sense that way, whereas a "thing" coming in that context is so meaningless as to be completely baffling? [*]

Comments

[achiasa.livejournal.com]

...wait, there are people arguing that 'thing' is correct? o.O I've always assumed, when seeing it (on the internet, mostly), that it's either a typo or a lamentable ignorance of grammar coupled with a lack of common sense. It's just... so obviously nonsensical, and while I'm all for usage, there is such a thing as basic logic. I mean, the meaning of the clause is 'you'll think again', so... I'm kind of floored here, really.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

According to the australian copracat the "thing" usage was so widespread in her upbringing that she assumed the "think" one was a mistake due to ignorance (o.O) even though she'd heard of it, and she argues that it might have its own separate grammatical meaning.

[jain]

Lack of common sense, yes. Lamentable ignorance of grammar, no. The phrase "you've got another thing coming" is actually an example of better grammar, due to the fact that "think" is properly speaking a verb and not a noun.

The whole situation is very similar to the interesting spin a friend of mine gave to Simon and Garfunkel's "Cecilia." The line in the song reads "I fall on the floor and I laughing." She heard "I fall on the floor and I lactate." More grammatically correct, but completely nonsensical. :-)

[achiasa.livejournal.com]

Ah, it's actually also a noun, as in 'to have a think'. I wouldn't be surprised if that's a more idiosyncratically English usage, though.

[jain]

That's why I said "properly speaking." :-) You're right that the word's used colloquially as a noun, but Webster's New Collegiate (and no doubt other dictionaries, as well, though that's the one sitting on my shelf) only recognizes the word as a verb.

[achiasa.livejournal.com]

Which would be why I mentioned it as an English usage, actually, as I checked the OED (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/think?view=uk) before posting. :)) It's definitely more colloquial (for some reason it strikes me as sounding rather northern, somehow) than it is RP, though.

...sorry, Cim. *shuts up*

[cimness.livejournal.com]

No, you're right, good point. I mean, I'm well aware of the use as a noun, but I still tended to assume the colloquial ring to the phrase was part of the point when it arose, as one of the pages I found when I was googling the phrase suggested. I can hear it in a classic gangster movie accent, for example. The fact that it's well-known in Britain, America and Australia could be due to movies and so on, or it could mean the phrase predates the early-20th century print references the etymologists mentioned in that link up above.

[jain]

Ah, I see what you mean now. I'd originally read "English" as "English language," rather than as "British English." My mistake.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

Except that the second "think" is not a grammatical error but a self-evidently deliberate play on words - its ungrammaticality is the essence of the phrase.

[jain]

Oh, I totally recognize that. In my comment, I was responding very narrowly to the idea that using the incorrect version of the phrase demonstrates an ignorance of grammar, which I don't believe it does. I agree that using the incorrect version of the phrase demonstrates an ignorance of logic.