<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Another [thing / think] coming</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.word-detective.com/2011/12/another-thing-think-coming/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.word-detective.com/2011/12/another-thing-think-coming/</link>
	<description>Semper Ubi Sub Ubi</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 19:32:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chaz</title>
		<link>http://www.word-detective.com/2011/12/another-thing-think-coming/comment-page-1/#comment-46062</link>
		<dc:creator>Chaz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:32:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.word-detective.com/?p=6125#comment-46062</guid>
		<description>*Addendum: further research has uncovered that a similar idiom preceded the &quot;think&quot; version and can be found in Coleridge&#039;s Olde Engish Dictionary, circa 1860; &quot;If he/she/they believe (thusly), you have another believe coming.&quot; 
Believe was commonly used as a noun during the mid 19th century, though fallen out of practice now. Believe it or it&#039;s not a believe.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!-- google_ad_section_start -->*Addendum: further research has uncovered that a similar idiom preceded the &#8220;think&#8221; version and can be found in Coleridge&#8217;s Olde Engish Dictionary, circa 1860; &#8220;If he/she/they believe (thusly), you have another believe coming.&#8221;<br />
Believe was commonly used as a noun during the mid 19th century, though fallen out of practice now. Believe it or it&#8217;s not a believe.<!-- google_ad_section_end --></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KT McCann</title>
		<link>http://www.word-detective.com/2011/12/another-thing-think-coming/comment-page-1/#comment-32593</link>
		<dc:creator>KT McCann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:27:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.word-detective.com/?p=6125#comment-32593</guid>
		<description>I meant David.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!-- google_ad_section_start -->I meant David.<!-- google_ad_section_end --></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KT McCann</title>
		<link>http://www.word-detective.com/2011/12/another-thing-think-coming/comment-page-1/#comment-32592</link>
		<dc:creator>KT McCann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:26:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.word-detective.com/?p=6125#comment-32592</guid>
		<description>Ooh la la! Robert. Well said!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!-- google_ad_section_start -->Ooh la la! Robert. Well said!<!-- google_ad_section_end --></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.word-detective.com/2011/12/another-thing-think-coming/comment-page-1/#comment-32149</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 00:41:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.word-detective.com/?p=6125#comment-32149</guid>
		<description>The typo was in the original text cited by the OED. But good catch. I didn&#039;t notice it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!-- google_ad_section_start -->The typo was in the original text cited by the OED. But good catch. I didn&#8217;t notice it.<!-- google_ad_section_end --></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Khan</title>
		<link>http://www.word-detective.com/2011/12/another-thing-think-coming/comment-page-1/#comment-31952</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Khan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 20:09:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.word-detective.com/?p=6125#comment-31952</guid>
		<description>Robert wins the prize for being the first to play the &quot;specious logic&quot; card. Every crusader for every malapropism must always be willing to insist that it is right, just and &quot;logical&quot; to use the wrong word or phrase. Thus the crusaders for &quot;I could care less&quot; twist and squirm and bludgeon semantics and insist &quot;I couldn&#039;t care less&quot; is less logical; the believers in &quot;for all intensive purposes&quot; will fight to the rhetorical death anyone who denies that their usage walks the true path of logic; loyal adherents of &quot;falling between the cracks&quot; will tie themselves in knots explaining how much more logical their phrase is than &quot;falling through the cracks&quot;.

But oddly enough, despite all the logic-twisting some folks go through to justify their usage, logic is not even a requirement for idioms. An idiom is what it is. Using it requires no logical justification. Those who are familiar with the idiomatic usage of a word or phrase understand it; those who are ignorant of it often simply mis-hear it, and subsequently butcher and mis-use it. Say &quot;pipe them gams!&quot; to a youngster who hasn&#039;t heard it, and it might be picked up in transmogrified form as &quot;like them hams!&quot;, and the wide-eyed, unaware youth will, in due time (or &quot;in do time&quot; as he might say), after repetition of his own butchered usage while remaining unaware of the original phrase, be able to explain the &quot;logic&quot; behind the expression, totally unaware of his error.

So yes, Robert, there are indeed now two idioms: the original clever turn of phrase, and the mistake borne upon the wings of ignorance. Some people might think there&#039;s no difference between a clever turn of phrase and an ignorant mistake, but they have another think coming. Those mistakes are telling, and elicit smiles.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!-- google_ad_section_start -->Robert wins the prize for being the first to play the &#8220;specious logic&#8221; card. Every crusader for every malapropism must always be willing to insist that it is right, just and &#8220;logical&#8221; to use the wrong word or phrase. Thus the crusaders for &#8220;I could care less&#8221; twist and squirm and bludgeon semantics and insist &#8220;I couldn&#8217;t care less&#8221; is less logical; the believers in &#8220;for all intensive purposes&#8221; will fight to the rhetorical death anyone who denies that their usage walks the true path of logic; loyal adherents of &#8220;falling between the cracks&#8221; will tie themselves in knots explaining how much more logical their phrase is than &#8220;falling through the cracks&#8221;.</p>
<p>But oddly enough, despite all the logic-twisting some folks go through to justify their usage, logic is not even a requirement for idioms. An idiom is what it is. Using it requires no logical justification. Those who are familiar with the idiomatic usage of a word or phrase understand it; those who are ignorant of it often simply mis-hear it, and subsequently butcher and mis-use it. Say &#8220;pipe them gams!&#8221; to a youngster who hasn&#8217;t heard it, and it might be picked up in transmogrified form as &#8220;like them hams!&#8221;, and the wide-eyed, unaware youth will, in due time (or &#8220;in do time&#8221; as he might say), after repetition of his own butchered usage while remaining unaware of the original phrase, be able to explain the &#8220;logic&#8221; behind the expression, totally unaware of his error.</p>
<p>So yes, Robert, there are indeed now two idioms: the original clever turn of phrase, and the mistake borne upon the wings of ignorance. Some people might think there&#8217;s no difference between a clever turn of phrase and an ignorant mistake, but they have another think coming. Those mistakes are telling, and elicit smiles.<!-- google_ad_section_end --></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel</title>
		<link>http://www.word-detective.com/2011/12/another-thing-think-coming/comment-page-1/#comment-30892</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2012 03:00:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.word-detective.com/?p=6125#comment-30892</guid>
		<description>Did you mean a &#039;Nissen&#039; hut?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissen_hut</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!-- google_ad_section_start -->Did you mean a &#8216;Nissen&#8217; hut?<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissen_hut" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissen_hut</a><!-- google_ad_section_end --></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://www.word-detective.com/2011/12/another-thing-think-coming/comment-page-1/#comment-28625</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:44:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.word-detective.com/?p=6125#comment-28625</guid>
		<description>&quot;Another think coming&quot; might have been the original idiom, but that doesn&#039;t mean that &quot;another thing coming&quot; is wrong. Both make perfect sense. If I say &quot;If you think you&#039;re going to steal my car, you&#039;ve got another thing coming,&quot; the first thing is you taking my car. The other thing is what will result if you attempt to steal my car. I don&#039;t make it explicit, but you might not like that second thing.

There was once one idiom, now there are two, and they are both perfectly logical. There is simply no logical basis for saying &quot;another thing coming&quot; is wrong. It&#039;s like &quot;card sharp&quot; vs. &quot;card shark&quot;. There is nothing wrong with either. Sharp may have been original, but card shark has connotations of someone who is not just skilled with cards, but someone who will take advantage of you, like a pool shark.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!-- google_ad_section_start -->&#8220;Another think coming&#8221; might have been the original idiom, but that doesn&#8217;t mean that &#8220;another thing coming&#8221; is wrong. Both make perfect sense. If I say &#8220;If you think you&#8217;re going to steal my car, you&#8217;ve got another thing coming,&#8221; the first thing is you taking my car. The other thing is what will result if you attempt to steal my car. I don&#8217;t make it explicit, but you might not like that second thing.</p>
<p>There was once one idiom, now there are two, and they are both perfectly logical. There is simply no logical basis for saying &#8220;another thing coming&#8221; is wrong. It&#8217;s like &#8220;card sharp&#8221; vs. &#8220;card shark&#8221;. There is nothing wrong with either. Sharp may have been original, but card shark has connotations of someone who is not just skilled with cards, but someone who will take advantage of you, like a pool shark.<!-- google_ad_section_end --></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.186 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2013-03-21 00:00:25 -->