Last night's post got everyone opinionated up. Let's try again. There are two kinds of people. People who think the phrase is "you've got another thing coming." As in the Judas Priest song. And people who think the phrase is "you've got another think coming." As in the Ross McDonald Novel, The Zebra Striped Hearse (p. 41 or so, if I recall.) People seem to divide pretty evenly in my experience. But googlefight gives it to 'thing'. Most of the top hits for 'think' are people denying that 'thing' is right. (I'm really not sure what's going on here, but clearly they support 'think'.)
I'm a 'think' man. Belle is a 'thing' lady.
bbwaring-at-yahoo-dot-com
You might have heard people arguing for the 'think' analysis. But you've got another hear coming.
You might have seen it defended on the internet. But you've got another see coming.
I'll have to have another think about this.
Damn!
Posted by: Anthony | March 11, 2005 at 11:43 PM
I've never heard or seen "think." Which pretty much settles it.
Posted by: ogged | March 11, 2005 at 11:53 PM
"Thing". Definitely.
I "think" the Ross McDonald usage was a "joke"
Posted by: Snowden | March 11, 2005 at 11:58 PM
"You've got another think coming" doesn't even make sense. Not that this ever stopepd any musician before, but still. Substituting think for thing implies a sophistication of wordplay that strikes me as unlikely. Heavy Metal musicians, especially from the seventies, aren't known for their witty lyrical word play but for the balls out attitude. yelling, "You've got another thing coming!" make smore sense, as it feeds the metal ethos.
Posted by: Keith | March 12, 2005 at 12:01 AM
I'm a 'think' person, to the point where I'm actually surprised that 'thing' isn't a simple error, like "hone in on". Does everyone else think the phase means something like "You are in error, and will soon be forced to reevaluate your position"? Or does it mean something different to 'thing' people?
Posted by: LizardBreath | March 12, 2005 at 12:10 AM
I can't really construe a grammatical reading with 'think'. What can it mean?
Look, here comes another think! They told me I had one coming.
Posted by: Anthony | March 12, 2005 at 12:16 AM
"Think" is ungrammatical, but it makes more sense than "thing" -- that which is coming isn't just any"thing", but particularly a reevaluation of one's beliefs. While describing a reevaluation of one's beliefs as a "think" is non-standard, it's a fairly clear and reasonable non-standard usage.
Posted by: LizardBreath | March 12, 2005 at 12:24 AM
"Think" is clearly a play on "thing." This is hardly a chicken-and-egg proposition, if you're trying to suss out which cropped up first. —If you're trying to figure out which is the more satisfying, well, de gustibus, baby. De gustibus. (But "think" is clearly a punning play on "thing," and we all know what they say about puns and the people who prefer them.)
Posted by: Kip Manley | March 12, 2005 at 12:26 AM
Except that I can't see "You've got another thing coming" as the original form of the cliche, because it doesn't in any way mean what the cliche means (in my idiolect, at least). "You've got another thing coming" is a perfectly well-formed sentence, as in the dialogue:
"Is this all of my things?"
"No, look down the conveyor belt. You've got another thing coming."
However, there's nothing in the sentence to indicate that 'thing' refers to a reevaluation of one's beliefs, as it must if the cliche is to have the meaning that I believe it does. In the absence of any such indication, how can 'thing' be the original form of the cliche?
Posted by: LizardBreath | March 12, 2005 at 12:35 AM
It doesn't seem too hard to me.
You have an opinion. Perhaps your opinion is based on ideas, evidence, whatever. Let's call these things 'things'. But wait! another thing is coming that will force you to reconsider your opinion.
Posted by: Anthony | March 12, 2005 at 12:39 AM
Consider the context: "You've got another thin* coming" typically follows the discovery that the other person is under some misconception -- e.g. "What?? You think the earth is flat? Man, you got another thin* coming!" In any context like this, "thing" makes zero sense, and "think" does. That that's ungrammatical is irrelevant to what the (obviously idiomatic) expression is meant to express: if you think x, you've got another think coming = x is wrong, so I suggest you think about it some more.
Posted by: Aeon J. Skoble | March 12, 2005 at 12:41 AM
BTW, for "there's nothing in the sentence to indicate that 'thing' refers to a reevaluation of one's beliefs, as it must if the cliche is to have the meaning that I believe it does", see Grice.
Posted by: Anthony | March 12, 2005 at 12:41 AM
Think. Totally.
Googlefight also has "could care less" *shudder* beating "couldn't care less." Don't trust the proles.
Posted by: nichole | March 12, 2005 at 12:50 AM
The OED gives it to think. Who'd have thunk? (Not I)
think, n. 2.b. to have another think coming: to be greatly mistaken.
1937 Amer. Speech XII. 317/1 Several different statements used for the same idea{em}that of some one's making a mistake...[e.g.] you have another think coming. 1942 T. BAILEY Pink Camellia xxvii. 199 If you think you can get me out of Gaywood, you have another think coming. 1979 Jrnl. R. Soc. Arts CXXVII. 221/2 Any design consultant who thinks he is going to get British Leyland right by himself on his own has got another think coming.
DRAFT ADDITIONS MARCH 2005:
thing, n. to have another thing coming [arising from misapprehension of to have another think coming s.v. THINK n. 2b] = to have another think coming s.v. THINK n. 2b. 1919 Syracuse (N.Y.) Herald 12 Aug. 8/3 If you think the life of a movie star is all sunshine and flowers you've got another thing coming. 1959 Lethbridge (Alberta, Canada) Herald 22 Aug. 20/3 Magistrate Edward Robey told them: ‘Please tell your friends in France that if any more come over here thinking they can put money in slot machines and get money galore, they have got another thing coming.’ 1971 N.Y. Times 26 Feb. 37/4 One of those taken into custody identified himself as ‘very prominent in the community’ and declared, ‘After this, if the police think they are getting a raise they've got another thing coming.’ 1981 J. SULLIVAN Only Fools & Horses (1999) I. 1st Ser. Episode 1. 57 Del. If you think I'm staying in a lead-lined nissan hut with you and Grandad and a chemical bloody khazi you've got another thing coming. 1998 A. O'HANLON Talk of Town (1999) I. iv. 60 If you think you're getting into my knickers, you have another thing coming.
Posted by: Richard Zach | March 12, 2005 at 12:51 AM
I'd buy 'thing' as the original form, if I'd ever heard a longer version of the cliche that disambiguated 'thing' -- e.g., "You've got another thing coming that will straighten you out." If the cliche isn't a cropped version of a long form, I can't see Grice's axiom of relevance as sufficient to disambiguate 'thing'. 'Thing' as referring to a mental state or piece of information just strikes me as non-standard enough that I can't picture comprehending it in the absence of prior knowledge of the meaning of the cliche.
I could be wrong, and often am, but I'm certain.
Posted by: LizardBreath | March 12, 2005 at 12:54 AM
I'm intrigued by this tribe of 'think' people who live amongst us. How do you feel about examples where the antecedent verb is not 'think'?
- If you believe that, you've got another think coming.
Or how about:
- If you think that's the last thing, you've got another thin* coming.
Posted by: Anthony | March 12, 2005 at 12:54 AM
Hah! Thank you, RZ (and the OED).
Posted by: LizardBreath | March 12, 2005 at 12:55 AM
I believe there was an Ask Metafilter or Metafilter thread in which this very issue was settled to my satisfaction, but I can't remember what the outcome was. Anyway, I'm with Skoble in theory ("if that's what you think...") but in practice I probably say "thing", possibly because, unless you enunciate very clearly, they're hard to differentiate anyway. (Is there a way to produce the IPA n-tail symbol on the web without resorting to images?)
Also, the proper wildcard here is "?", not "*" (or even [gk]).
Posted by: ben wolfson | March 12, 2005 at 12:58 AM
Oddly, the OED seems to say that 'thing' (as a misapprehension of 'think') predates that use of 'think'.
Posted by: Anthony | March 12, 2005 at 12:59 AM
I didn't have any luck trying to do IPA last week on that Ogged thread about cock-jokes. No I mean, the singer he couldn't understand. Let's see:
ŋ
Posted by: Anthony | March 12, 2005 at 01:02 AM
Cool!
Posted by: ben wolfson | March 12, 2005 at 01:06 AM
Huh. Cut and paste error? Has anyone else got a copy of the OED?
Posted by: LizardBreath | March 12, 2005 at 01:10 AM
My OED is too small to read. But at the cost of my eyesight I can confirm that it does have 1937 as the first 'think coming'. It also has as one of the definitions of 'thing': "That which is thought, an opinion, a notion, an idea."
Posted by: Anthony | March 12, 2005 at 01:21 AM
My OED is too small to read. But at the cost of my eyesight I can confirm that it does have 1937 as the first 'think coming'. It also has as one of the definitions of 'thing': "That which is thought, an opinion, a notion, an idea."
Posted by: Anthony | March 12, 2005 at 01:24 AM
Huh. I wonder why the identification of "thing coming" as a misapprehension, then. I'll have to look at mine when I get home.
Posted by: LizardBreath | March 12, 2005 at 01:31 AM