![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Apr. 7th, 2008
Another thing or another think?
Apr. 7th, 2008 09:27 amJust for curiosity's sake... I know which is correct, and I know which I believed was correct for the last thirty eight years. And they're not the same.
No googling allowed. Just answer which one you believe to be the correct phrase.
[Poll #1166975]
No googling allowed. Just answer which one you believe to be the correct phrase.
[Poll #1166975]
OED:
think, n. 2b to have another think coming: to be greatly mistaken.
1937 Amer. Speech XII. 317/1 Several different statements used for the same idea - that of some one's making a mistake...[e.g.] you have another think coming.
And yes, I've always believed it was "thing". But it seems to be split almost exactly down the middle between people thinking it's "thing" and thinging (sic) it's "think", according to the poll. Apparently, in an informal poll at Merriam Webster, 60% of editors thought it was "thing", despite what written sources will tell you.
I personally believe that, in this case, either should be usable. Both make perfect sense; one's more grammatically correct than the other, but is less specifically correct in context (a thing? what thing exactly? perhaps this Thing?). The other is a purposely gramatically incorrect colloquialism, nouning a verb (rather than the other way around, like I just did). Both are good as far as I'm concerned. And "thing" sounds better, rolls off the tongue. But there's no denying it. "Think" is the correct one. "Thing" is a corruption of it, thanks to words running together.
What I find more fascinating, though, as a side issue, is the way people can't accept that something they've believed their entire adult lives is incorrect. This whole thing came about during a discussion on the weekend amongst my family. My brother, an English teacher (!), was saying how he saw "another think coming" in the paper and thought it was wrong. I agreed. But my mother and sisters both thought it was "think". And boy, did we argue! Then we found sources to support "think" and none (apart from Judas Priest) for "thing", that we were forced to accept that we were wrong. And it hurt. Thirty eight years of belief, shattered in an instant. It's hard to let go, but I did. Others, it seems, are having a harder time with it. ;)
It makes me realise, if there was absolute proof positive of the non-existence of God, that wouldn't change as many minds as I might have thought. And likewise, if the existence of God was proven, I'd still have a hard time believing it. Belief can be so much stronger than truth, even with overwhelming evidence, especially if it's a belief held over decades or, heaven help us, millennia. If it's so hard to believe that a simple insignificant phrase that you thought was right is in fact wrong, what chance is there of changing deeply held beliefs?
None whatsoever.
think, n. 2b to have another think coming: to be greatly mistaken.
1937 Amer. Speech XII. 317/1 Several different statements used for the same idea - that of some one's making a mistake...[e.g.] you have another think coming.
And yes, I've always believed it was "thing". But it seems to be split almost exactly down the middle between people thinking it's "thing" and thinging (sic) it's "think", according to the poll. Apparently, in an informal poll at Merriam Webster, 60% of editors thought it was "thing", despite what written sources will tell you.
I personally believe that, in this case, either should be usable. Both make perfect sense; one's more grammatically correct than the other, but is less specifically correct in context (a thing? what thing exactly? perhaps this Thing?). The other is a purposely gramatically incorrect colloquialism, nouning a verb (rather than the other way around, like I just did). Both are good as far as I'm concerned. And "thing" sounds better, rolls off the tongue. But there's no denying it. "Think" is the correct one. "Thing" is a corruption of it, thanks to words running together.
What I find more fascinating, though, as a side issue, is the way people can't accept that something they've believed their entire adult lives is incorrect. This whole thing came about during a discussion on the weekend amongst my family. My brother, an English teacher (!), was saying how he saw "another think coming" in the paper and thought it was wrong. I agreed. But my mother and sisters both thought it was "think". And boy, did we argue! Then we found sources to support "think" and none (apart from Judas Priest) for "thing", that we were forced to accept that we were wrong. And it hurt. Thirty eight years of belief, shattered in an instant. It's hard to let go, but I did. Others, it seems, are having a harder time with it. ;)
It makes me realise, if there was absolute proof positive of the non-existence of God, that wouldn't change as many minds as I might have thought. And likewise, if the existence of God was proven, I'd still have a hard time believing it. Belief can be so much stronger than truth, even with overwhelming evidence, especially if it's a belief held over decades or, heaven help us, millennia. If it's so hard to believe that a simple insignificant phrase that you thought was right is in fact wrong, what chance is there of changing deeply held beliefs?
None whatsoever.