Another thing/think coming survey results redux
R Fontana
An e-mail correspondent has inquired about the results of 1999's Totally
Official another thing/think coming survey, and has indicated that it was
somewhat difficult to find this information in deja.com's archives. I
accidentally deleted my copy of the relevant posting, it seems, but I did
find my final results posting on deja.com and I am reposting it here.
(Prescript: One of my contentions during the thing/think discussion was
that I had never knowingly encountered the "think" version in printed
text, and that if I ever heard the "think" version I heard it as "thing".
A few days ago I was watching part of _Splendor in the Grass_ and I
noticed for the first time that one of the characters clearly said
"another think coming" at one point in the dialogue. This is a movie I had
seen a zillion times before.)
============================
[Posting dated 27 Nov 1999]
Grand total: think thing knows "something
else coming"
47 30 11
By birth year: think thing knows "something
else coming"
1921-1929 3
1930-1938 3 2
1939-1947 16 2 1
1948-1956 12 5 1
1957-1965 8 8 3
1966-1974 2 7 4
1975-1983 3 3 1
1984- 3 1
By birth year: US only
think thing knows "something
else coming"
1921-1929 3
1930-1938 2 2
1939-1947 6 2 1
1948-1956 5 3
1957-1965 4 5 3
1966-1974 1 3 2
1975-1983 1 1
1984- 1 1
By birth year: UK only
think thing knows "something
else coming"
1939-1947 8
1948-1956 5
1957-1965 2 1
1966-1974 4 3
1975-1983 2 2 1
Note: One UK respondent (1966-1974) knows both
expressions, associating the "think" version with the presence of a
"think" setup and the "thing" version with the presence of some other sort
of setup. I am including this person as a "thing" respondent and not as a
"think" respondent.
US by region think thing knows "something
else coming"
Northeast 5 9 6
South(east) 2 1
Midwest 4 4 1
Plains 1
Southwest 5
N. Calif. 3
Pacific NW 1
Other 2 2
Notes:
Northeast includes Maryland
Midwest includes western Pennsylvania
Southwest includes Texas and S. Calif.
Other includes people who emphasized geographically mobile childhoods,
etc.
By country: think thing knows "something else
coming"
US 22 17 7
Canada 5 2
UK 17 7 4
Ireland 1
Australia 3 3
If I thought the answers to the parents' education question were
interesting or instructive I'd include them, but in general I don't think
they shed any light on the matter. I include information only on the
Northeast, the US region which had the most "thing" respondents.
Northeast US by parents' educational background:
No. of college-
educated parents think thing knows "something
else coming"
0 1 5 2
1 1 1
2 4 3 3
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>(Prescript: One of my contentions during the thing/think discussion was
>that I had never knowingly encountered the "think" version in printed
>text, and that if I ever heard the "think" version I heard it as "thing".
>A few days ago I was watching part of _Splendor in the Grass_ and I
>noticed for the first time that one of the characters clearly said
>"another think coming" at one point in the dialogue. This is a movie I had
>seen a zillion times before.)
Which character said this? I can't picture James Dean using this
unAmerican expression, so who was it?
Charles Riggs, a northeastern American, which fits in with your survey
results
R Fontana
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:16:29 -0500, R Fontana <re...@columbia.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >(Prescript: One of my contentions during the thing/think discussion was
> >that I had never knowingly encountered the "think" version in printed
> >text, and that if I ever heard the "think" version I heard it as "thing".
> >A few days ago I was watching part of _Splendor in the Grass_ and I
> >noticed for the first time that one of the characters clearly said
> >"another think coming" at one point in the dialogue. This is a movie I had
> >seen a zillion times before.)
>
> Which character said this? I can't picture James Dean using this
> unAmerican expression, so who was it?
Dean wasn't in _Splendor in the Grass_ (1961), which also starred Warren
Beatty; perhaps you're thinking of another Natalie Wood movie, _Rebel
Without A Cause_ (1955).
I actually don't remember now who said "another think coming", I was so
blown away by realizing it was actually "think" and not "thing". It was
probably Wood's character's mother, played by Audrey Christie, but it
might have been Wood herself or another of the female characters. I can't
find an online screenplay.
> Charles Riggs, a northeastern American, which fits in with your survey
> results
Ah, so you're a "thing" man.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Charles Riggs wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:16:29 -0500, R Fontana <re...@columbia.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >(Prescript: One of my contentions during the thing/think discussion was
>> >that I had never knowingly encountered the "think" version in printed
>> >text, and that if I ever heard the "think" version I heard it as "thing".
>> >A few days ago I was watching part of _Splendor in the Grass_ and I
>> >noticed for the first time that one of the characters clearly said
>> >"another think coming" at one point in the dialogue. This is a movie I had
>> >seen a zillion times before.)
>>
>> Which character said this? I can't picture James Dean using this
>> unAmerican expression, so who was it?
>
>Dean wasn't in _Splendor in the Grass_ (1961), which also starred Warren
>Beatty; perhaps you're thinking of another Natalie Wood movie, _Rebel
>Without A Cause_ (1955).
Yes. I only realised that several hours after posting.
>I actually don't remember now who said "another think coming", I was so
>blown away by realizing it was actually "think" and not "thing". It was
>probably Wood's character's mother, played by Audrey Christie, but it
>might have been Wood herself or another of the female characters. I can't
>find an online screenplay.
>
>> Charles Riggs, a northeastern American, which fits in with your survey
>> results
>
>Ah, so you're a "thing" man.
I'm not. The "which" was meant to refer to my opinion on think vs
thing and not to myself. I could have phrased it better, I admit.
Charles Riggs
Tootsie
Charles Riggs wrote in message ...
>R Fontana wrote:
>>Ah, so you're a "thing" man.
>I'm not.
Well, thank goodness you cleared that up. If I thought that you thought
you had another "thing" coming instead of another "think," I would have
to rethink all my thoughts about your thinking. Or something.
>The "which" was meant to refer to my opinion on think vs
>thing and not to myself.
Uh...
>I could have phrased it better, I admit.
Yes. And maybe still could...? ;-)
Tootsie
Evan Kirshenbaum
> >Ah, so you're a "thing" man.
>
> I'm not.
You're a goği?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The body was wrapped in duct tape,
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |weighted down with concrete blocks
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and a telephone cord was tied
|around the neck. Police suspect
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |foul play...
(650)857-7572
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>
>Charles Riggs wrote in message ...
>>R Fontana wrote:
>
>>>Ah, so you're a "thing" man.
>
>>I'm not.
>
>Well, thank goodness you cleared that up. If I thought that you thought
>you had another "thing" coming instead of another "think," I would have
>to rethink all my thoughts about your thinking. Or something.
I think I may have misread Richard's comment. To my
"Charles Riggs, a northeastern American, which fits in with your
survey results", he replied 'Ah, so you're a "thing" man.' I thought
he meant by this that I was calling a person (me, in this case) a
thing since I used the word "which". (Perhaps I was thinking of a
recent thread about whether a baby could be called an "it".) I do
indeed say *You've got another thing coming". That's how I say it and
that's how I've always heard it. No mistake about that.
>>The "which" was meant to refer to my opinion on think vs
>>thing and not to myself.
>
>Uh...
>
>>I could have phrased it better, I admit.
>
>Yes. And maybe still could...? ;-)
I tried. Did I pass?
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
<ev...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>Charles Riggs <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> writes:
>
>> >Ah, so you're a "thing" man.
>>
>> I'm not.
>
>You're a goği?
I fear that went over my head. I skip pronunciation threads; is that
relevant?
Charles Riggs
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On 18 Jan 2001 13:14:52 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum
> <ev...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
> >Charles Riggs <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> writes:
> >
> >> >Ah, so you're a "thing" man.
> >>
> >> I'm not.
> >
> >You're a goği?
>
> I fear that went over my head.
Sorry.
> I skip pronunciation threads; is that relevant?
Nope. In medieval Iceland, the chiefs were "goği". One who
(voluntarily, you got to choose your lord) followed a goği was a
"şingmann" or "thingman".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |When all else fails, give the
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |customer what they ask for. This
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |is strong medicine and rarely needs
|to be repeated.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Tootsie
>>Charles Riggs wrote in message ...
>>>The "which" was meant to refer to my opinion on think vs
>>>thing and not to myself.
>>Uh...
>>>I could have phrased it better, I admit.
>>Yes. And maybe still could...? ;-)
>I think I may have misread Richard's comment. To my
>"Charles Riggs, a northeastern American, which fits in with your
>survey results", he replied 'Ah, so you're a "thing" man.' I thought
>he meant by this that I was calling a person (me, in this case) a
>thing since I used the word "which". (Perhaps I was thinking of a
>recent thread about whether a baby could be called an "it".) I do
>indeed say *You've got another thing coming". That's how I say it and
>that's how I've always heard it. No mistake about that.
[in response to "Yes. And maybe still could...? ;-)"]
>I tried. Did I pass?
Yes, and I even follow your reasoning. That's dangerous. If I can follow
your reasoning, then it must be similar to mine, and you know what my
reasoning is. In a word, convoluted.
It's time to begin worrying, Charles.
Tootsie
Masaki MIDORIKAWA
"R Fontana" wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> (Prescript: One of my contentions during the thing/think discussion
> was that I had never knowingly encountered the "think" version in
> printed text, and that if I ever heard the "think" version I heard it as
> "thing". A few days ago I was watching part of _Splendor in the
> Grass_ and I noticed for the first time that one of the characters
> clearly said "another think coming" at one point in the dialogue. This
> is a movie I had seen a zillion times before.)
>
>
The alt.usage.english FAQ file gives:
"You have another think coming"
"If you think that, you have another think coming" means "You are
mistaken and will soon have to alter your opinion". This is now sometimes
heard with "thing" in place of "think", but "think" is the older version.
Eric Partridge, in A Dictionary of Catch Phrases, gives the phrase as "you
have another guess coming", "US: since the 1920s, if not a decade or two
earlier". Clearly "think" is closer to "guess" than "thing" is. The OED
gives a citation with "think" from 1937, and no evidence for "thing".
Merriam-Webster Editorial Department writes: "When an informal poll was
conducted here at Merriam-Webster, about 60% of our editors favored 'thing'
over 'think,' a result that runs counter to our written evidence."
_A Dictionary of Catch Phrase, Second Edition_ (1985) adds:
[Paul Beale], 1976, pertinently asks, 'What does this make "If that's what
you think, [then I'm afraid] you've got another think coming?' A potential,
perhaps even an incipient [catch phrase].
_Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, Sixth Edition_
(2000) gives:
you've got anothet think coming (informal) used to tell [somebody] that
they are wrong about [something] and must change their plans or opinions
According to Lenie Johansen, _The Dinkum Dictionary_ (1991), it is also used
in Australia.
If you think I'm going to sit still and play noughts and crosses after
listening to all that dreary crap, you've bloody well got another guess
coming.
--Angus Wilson, _Hemlock and After_ (1957)
If you think you're better than me you've got another think coming.
Harold Pinter, _The Caretaker_ (1960)
Helen: In any case, bearing a child doesn't place one under an obligation to
it.
Geoff: I should have thought it did.
Helen: Well, you've got another think coming. (TOH)
--Shelagh Delaney, _A Taste of Honey_ (1960)
'If you think I'm going to work in conditions like this,' he said, 'you got
another think coming, mate!'
--_Punch_, 9 Oct 1974
m.midorikawa
mpl...@my-deja.com
But the point of the survey was that many people, including me, were
brought up saying "...you've got another thing coming." So many, in
fact, that arguments that that version is "wrong" are laughable.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
picaresque
mpl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <94fbhb$3j3$1...@newsgw8.odn.ne.jp>,
> "Masaki MIDORIKAWA" <mas...@kun.ne.jp> wrote:
> >
> > "R Fontana" wrote:
> > >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > (Prescript: One of my contentions during the thing/think
discussion
> > > was that I had never knowingly encountered the "think" version in
> > > printed text, and that if I ever heard the "think" version I heard
> it as
> > > "thing". A few days ago I was watching part of _Splendor in the
> > > Grass_ and I noticed for the first time that one of the characters
> > > clearly said "another think coming" at one point in the dialogue.
> This
> > > is a movie I had seen a zillion times before.)
> > >
> > [snip]
> > >
> >
> > The alt.usage.english FAQ file gives:
> > m.midorikawa
> >
> >
>
> But the point of the survey was that many people, including me, were
> brought up saying "...you've got another thing coming." So many, in
> fact, that arguments that that version is "wrong" are laughable.
>
> --
> Raymond S. Wise
> Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
>
interchangable. I've used both expressions. Another think...you need
to rethink your position, you might want to take another look at the
situation, change your mind. Another thing.... more of a threat you'd
better change your position or ways or there may be bad or
surprisingly unpleasant consequences, you'll be sorry.
Born 50's midwest traveled like gypsies until late 50s and grew up
mostly in the Bay Area of Calif.
-- Growing old is mandatory. Growing rich is optional
picaresque
P&D Schultz
>
> But the point of the survey was that many people, including me, were
> brought up saying "...you've got another thing coming." So many, in
> fact, that arguments that that version is "wrong" are laughable.
But a lot of the people who *think* they were "brought up saying
'...you've got another thing coming'," weren't. They were just
mis-hearing it all along.
\\P. Schultz
mpl...@my-deja.com
I don't know about it being "a lot" of people, but undoubtedly some
people made that mistake. The other side of the coin is that some
people who heard others say "...you've got another thing coming"
misheard it as "think."
R Fontana
Accepting (as I now do) that "think" may be the older form, I think it's
most likely that an adult misheard the (to him or her) novel phrase as
"thing" and then passed it on to his or her children as "thing".
Steve Hayes
>> But a lot of the people who *think* they were "brought up saying
>> '...you've got another thing coming'," weren't. They were just
>> mis-hearing it all along.
>>
>> \\P. Schultz
>>
>
>
>I don't know about it being "a lot" of people, but undoubtedly some
>people made that mistake. The other side of the coin is that some
>people who heard others say "...you've got another thing coming"
>misheard it as "think."
I must be one of those... until I saw the title of this thread I never heard
of ANYONE saying "another thing" coming.
But I may have misheard it - assumed that they were eliding the two consonants
k-c into one, when actually they were only saying on in the first place.
Steve Hayes
http://www.suite101.com/myhome.cfm/methodius
Bob Cunningham
said:
[...]
>But what weight should we put on the opinions of people who ignore the
>meanings of the component words when using several of them in phrase?
We might say, "We could care less about their opinions."
R Fontana
> mpl...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> >But the point of the survey was that many people, including me, were
> >brought up saying "...you've got another thing coming." So many, in
> >fact, that arguments that that version is "wrong" are laughable.
>
> First time I knew that the way to settle questions of fact was to take
> a vote. Very democratic of course, but as a way of settling questions
> of fact best left to lemmings.
I'm not sure it can be regarded as a question of fact. Or, rather, there
is a question of fact, but the answer is that some people say, and think
they are saying, "another think coming", and other people say, and think
they are saying, "another thing coming".
mpl...@my-deja.com
100...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu>,
The following is addressed to Chris Malcolm:
I'm pretty sure that by the time the survey was taken, it was already
agreed that large numbers of people say "another thing coming,": the
person who proposed the survey was trying to find if there was any
regional pattern, or if there tended to be a difference in usage based
upon the respondent's age. The survey was _not_ a vote to determine
correct usage.
Once a usage has become widespread, it is a correct usage: Consider the
pronunciation of _poinsettia_ as three syllables, or the pronunciation
of _February_ with /ju/ instead of /ru/.
If you don't agree, than it must be a trial for you to use a modern
dictionary, because all the major dictionaries--even the American
Heritage Dictionary with its usage panel--recognize that principle
(which, as far as dictionaries go, began with the OED).
Donna Richoux
> Sometimes I say "another think coming", when that is what I mean, and
> sometimes I say "another thing coming", when that is what I
> mean. However, I suspect you are talking about some rather confused
> people who say one when they actually mean the other. And I don't see
> how regional usage patterns allow you to distinguish between someone
> who is using "thing" or "think" properly, because that is what they
> mean, and those who have mixed them up. After all, a higher usage of
> the "thing" version might simply mean it is used correctly, and is
> fashionable there, or that it is more often used incorrectly. How can
> anyone tell by a simple usage survey what is going on?
First of all, may I say how glad I was to see you rejoin us. You were
one of the regulars when I first started reading a.u.e, and there have
been times I've wished for your dour Scottish perspective.
Second, I do believe I was the person who suggested someone gather some
data in a simple survey, and Richard immediately volunteered. Before
that point, there had been lots and lots of back and forth that showed
that some people thought the idiom was one way, and others thought it
was the other. There had been much incredulity all around.
There was no doubt we were talking about the same expression, the one
found in "If that's what you think, then you have another _______
coming." Although you raise the possibility of the other "thing coming,"
such as "I expect a thing coming in the mail today," believe me, that
was not the meaning anyone meant.
It seemed clear enough to me that it was one of those change-mistakes,
like "not by a long chalk/not by a long shot". You can call "long shot"
a mistake if you like, uttered by "confused people," but it is the only
form of the expression known to 99% of Americans. A kind of
folk-etymology, in the older sense of the phrase "folk-etymology."
The hopes of doing a survey was that it might show a clean break by age
or location. It didn't -- it showed some patterns, though. You did see
the figures?
--
Best wishes --- Donna Richoux
P&D Schultz
>
> In article <3A6BAD0C...@erols.com>,
> P&D Schultz <schu...@erols.com> wrote:
> > mpl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > But the point of the survey was that many people, including me, were
> > > brought up saying "...you've got another thing coming." So many, in
> > > fact, that arguments that that version is "wrong" are laughable.
> >
> > But a lot of the people who *think* they were "brought up saying
> > '...you've got another thing coming'," weren't. They were just
> > mis-hearing it all along.
> I don't know about it being "a lot" of people, but undoubtedly some
> people made that mistake. The other side of the coin is that some
> people who heard others say "...you've got another thing coming"
> misheard it as "think."
That's an interesting possibility, and probably true. We tend to try to
make sense of the things we hear, so when a person hears "thing/think"
where only "think" makes any sense, he will assume he has heard "think."
In other words, he has unconsciously corrected the misstatement of the
person speaking, who obviously had a less acute sense of sensibility.
\\P. Schultz
Paul Pfalzner
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:94ieeo$89s$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
> R Fontana <re...@columbia.edu> writes:
>
> >On 22 Jan 2001, Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
> >> mpl...@my-deja.com writes:
> >>
> >> >But the point of the survey was that many people, including me, were
> >> >brought up saying "...you've got another thing coming." So many, in
> >> >fact, that arguments that that version is "wrong" are laughable.
Goes to show that language constantly evolves because some people
misunderstand what they hear.
Paul
mpl...@my-deja.com
As in human genetics, errors are made and if they become a regular part
of the gene pool, they can no longer be considered errors.
Simon R. Hughes
So how many thinks have you had this week? And how many things have I
had coming (no sniggering, back there)?
My analysis: both are spoken simultaneously, neither orthographic form
is more correct than the other.
/juh&v@nVT@TiNkVmiN/ is the same for whichever orthographic form you
endow it with.
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://www.geocities.com/a57998/subconscious/
E&OE
R Fontana
The first /T/ should be /D/, the /i/s should be /I/, but yes.
For a "thing" person (like me) to hear "think" there has to be a
sufficient pause between "think" and "coming", so that, I guess,
phonetically it sounds like a double consonant.
Steve Hayes
P&D Schultz
>
> > mpl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > P&D Schultz <schu...@erols.com> wrote:
> > That's an interesting possibility, and probably true. We tend to try to
> > make sense of the things we hear, so when a person hears "thing/think"
> > where only "think" makes any sense, he will assume he has heard "think."
> > In other words, he has unconsciously corrected the misstatement of the
> > person speaking, who obviously had a less acute sense of sensibility.
>
> So how many thinks have you had this week? And how many things have I
> had coming (no sniggering, back there)?
>
> My analysis: both are spoken simultaneously, neither orthographic form
> is more correct than the other.
Right. Just like "I saw the lions and tigers at the zoo," and "I saw the
lines and tigers as the zoo." Both are spoken simultaneously, neither
orthographic form is more correct than the other.
However, like the "think/thing" issue, one makes sense and the other
doesn't.
\\P. Schultz
Evan Kirshenbaum
> However, like the "think/thing" issue, one makes sense and the other
> doesn't.
Right. Only one fits in with Dr. Seuss's _Oh, the Thinks You Can
Think_, Bill Nye's _Thinks and Remarks_, Andre Everett's _Moods,
Thinks and Thoughts_, or Robert Femiano's _Quick Thinks Math_. (There
are also three books at Amazon titled simply _Thinks_, by Bill Nye,
David Lodge, and Keith Waterhouse.) "Thing" simply wouldn't make any
sense in context. But that's the way idioms work, and that's the way
some people (not me) say it.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Never attempt to teach a pig to
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |sing; it wastes your time and
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |annoys the pig.
| Robert Heinlein
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
R Fontana
> P&D Schultz <schu...@erols.com> writes:
>
> > However, like the "think/thing" issue, one makes sense and the other
> > doesn't.
>
> Right. Only one fits in with Dr. Seuss's _Oh, the Thinks You Can
> Think_, Bill Nye's _Thinks and Remarks_, Andre Everett's _Moods,
> Thinks and Thoughts_, or Robert Femiano's _Quick Thinks Math_. (There
> are also three books at Amazon titled simply _Thinks_, by Bill Nye,
> David Lodge, and Keith Waterhouse.) "Thing" simply wouldn't make any
> sense in context. But that's the way idioms work, and that's the way
I'm not sure I understand. The most important point that the "think"
people should have learned from the past discussion of this issue is that
the "thing" people *do* think the expression with "thing" makes sense. As
I think I said several times last year, or in 1999 rather, "thing" has its
ordinary meaning in "another thing coming". I understand that those who
know the expression as "think" will have trouble accepting this.
Regarding those book titles, I would only say something that I also said
last time: the noun "think" is not a part of my everyday language, and it
verges on being foreign to me. But there are probably few nouns used as
often as "thing". I'm sure one can find a lot of book titles with "Thing"
in them.
--
Richard ("thing" loyalist)
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On 23 Jan 2001, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
> > P&D Schultz <schu...@erols.com> writes:
> >
> > > However, like the "think/thing" issue, one makes sense and the
> > > other doesn't.
> >
> > Right. Only one fits in with Dr. Seuss's _Oh, the Thinks You Can
> > Think_, Bill Nye's _Thinks and Remarks_, Andre Everett's _Moods,
> > Thinks and Thoughts_, or Robert Femiano's _Quick Thinks Math_.
> > (There are also three books at Amazon titled simply _Thinks_, by
> > Bill Nye, David Lodge, and Keith Waterhouse.) "Thing" simply
> > wouldn't make any sense in context. But that's the way idioms
> > work, and that's the way
>
> I'm not sure I understand. The most important point that the
> "think" people should have learned from the past discussion of this
> issue is that the "thing" people *do* think the expression with
> "thing" makes sense. As I think I said several times last year, or
> in 1999 rather, "thing" has its ordinary meaning in "another thing
> coming". I understand that those who know the expression as "think"
> will have trouble accepting this.
Oh, I understand that. (At least as far as I can without asking
"another what? An apple? A rock? A rosebush?") I was just
responding somewhat tongue-in-cheek to the assertion that one makes
sense and the other doesn't. Since "think" clearly (to me) makes
sense, if this assertion is true, then you must be implying that the
other one doesn't.
> Regarding those book titles, I would only say something that I also
> said last time: the noun "think" is not a part of my everyday
> language,
Nor mine. Neither is a "poke", and yet I try not to buy a pig in one.
It wouldn't surprise me if somewhere people cautioned one another not
to buy a pig in a pack, as that clearly makes more sense. I view this
"think" as either an obsolete (MW dates it, with, unfortunately, the
quote of "has another think coming" to 1834) word for or intentionally
humorous play on "thought". It's not all that anomalous when you
think about it. If the word "thought" hadn't already been there, the
word would almost certainly have been "think" (or possibly "thinking")
following the model of "smile", "grin", "laugh", "shrug", "wave",
"sigh", "stare"--all actions in which you either "X" or "X an X".
If the choice were between "thing" and "thought", which do you suppose
would be the more likely?
> and it verges on being foreign to me. But there are probably few
> nouns used as often as "thing". I'm sure one can find a lot of book
> titles with "Thing" in them.
Right. But when "think" is used as a noun, it appears to be used in
exactly the sense that would be needed in this saying. "Thing" is all
over the map, but is rarely used for thoughts. What precisely is the
"thing" you envision coming? You say it has its "ordinary meaning",
which I would take to be some sort of unnamed physical object. The
closest I can get is a topic ("another thing to consider"), but I
can't get that to make any sense in the phrase.
Just one more data point. From John Bunyan's seventeenth century
_Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners_:
Everyone doth think his own religion rightest, both Jews and
Moors, and Pagans! and how if all our faith, and Christ, and
Scriptures, should be but a think-so too?
That "a think-so" looks like the same process that would produce "a
think".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |In the beginning, there were no
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |reasons, there were only causes.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Daniel Dennet
Mike Barnes
>On 23 Jan 2001, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
>> P&D Schultz <schu...@erols.com> writes:
>>
>> > However, like the "think/thing" issue, one makes sense and the other
>> > doesn't.
>>
>> Right. Only one fits in with Dr. Seuss's _Oh, the Thinks You Can
>> Think_, Bill Nye's _Thinks and Remarks_, Andre Everett's _Moods,
>> Thinks and Thoughts_, or Robert Femiano's _Quick Thinks Math_. (There
>> are also three books at Amazon titled simply _Thinks_, by Bill Nye,
>> David Lodge, and Keith Waterhouse.) "Thing" simply wouldn't make any
>> sense in context. But that's the way idioms work, and that's the way
>
>I'm not sure I understand. The most important point that the "think"
>people should have learned from the past discussion of this issue is that
>the "thing" people *do* think the expression with "thing" makes sense. As
>I think I said several times last year, or in 1999 rather, "thing" has its
>ordinary meaning in "another thing coming". I understand that those who
>know the expression as "think" will have trouble accepting this.
I think that's a fair analysis. I follow all you said, but what I don't
see is the *sense* with "thing" having its "ordinary meaning". What
exactly is the "thing", bearing in mind that there must be the
possibility of "another" one? If you could explain that to me I'd be
very grateful.
I try to put myself in the position of a thinger and imagine what I
would think, say, and do about the revelation of the "think" form and
its adherents. I'm pretty sure I'd see the light and mend my ways, just
like I did, publicly in this group, over "restauranteur".
Do we have in this group anyone who grew up with "thing" and has now
changed their mind? Or (for the sake of completeness) anyone who grew up
with "think" and has now changed their mind?
--
Mike Barnes
Simon R. Hughes
"Lions" is not pronounced in the same way as "lines". It's not my
fault you speak sloppy.
> However, like the "think/thing" issue, one makes sense and the other
> doesn't.
Meaning, no doubt, that you lack the imagination to allow others to
disagree.
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://www.geocities.com/a57998/subconscious/
Quoting Usenet postings in follow-ups --
http://www.geocities.com/a57998/quote.html
Al in Dallas
[snip]
> > I'm not sure I understand. The most important point that the
> > "think" people should have learned from the past discussion of this
> > issue is that the "thing" people *do* think the expression with
> > "thing" makes sense. As I think I said several times last year, or
> > in 1999 rather, "thing" has its ordinary meaning in "another thing
> > coming". I understand that those who know the expression as "think"
> > will have trouble accepting this.
>
> Oh, I understand that. (At least as far as I can without asking
> "another what? An apple? A rock? A rosebush?") I was just
> responding somewhat tongue-in-cheek to the assertion that one makes
> sense and the other doesn't. Since "think" clearly (to me) makes
> sense, if this assertion is true, then you must be implying that the
> other one doesn't.
[snip]
> > and it verges on being foreign to me. But there are probably few
> > nouns used as often as "thing". I'm sure one can find a lot of book
> > titles with "Thing" in them.
>
> Right. But when "think" is used as a noun, it appears to be used in
> exactly the sense that would be needed in this saying. "Thing" is all
> over the map, but is rarely used for thoughts. What precisely is the
> "thing" you envision coming? You say it has its "ordinary meaning",
> which I would take to be some sort of unnamed physical object. The
> closest I can get is a topic ("another thing to consider"), but I
> can't get that to make any sense in the phrase.
ARRRRRGGGGGGG!!!
It has always seemed obvious to me that the "thing" in "another thing
coming" is something other than what is expected: If you think that then
you have something other than what you expect coming to you, or more
concisely, you have another thing coming.
I don't understand how the "think" crowd fails to understand this
explanation.
[snip]
--
Al in Dallas
Al in Dallas
Mike Barnes <news-r...@senrab.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I think that's a fair analysis. I follow all you said, but what I
don't
> see is the *sense* with "thing" having its "ordinary meaning". What
> exactly is the "thing", bearing in mind that there must be the
> possibility of "another" one? If you could explain that to me I'd be
> very grateful.
>
> I try to put myself in the position of a thinger and imagine what I
> would think, say, and do about the revelation of the "think" form and
> its adherents. I'm pretty sure I'd see the light and mend my ways,
just
> like I did, publicly in this group, over "restauranteur".
>
> Do we have in this group anyone who grew up with "thing" and has now
> changed their mind? Or (for the sake of completeness) anyone who grew
up
> with "think" and has now changed their mind?
FWIW, I grew up with "thing," and I whole-heartedly agree with those
ancient sages who insist that the phrase originally had "think" in it. I
see the "*sense*" of "think," and I tried to explain the "*sense*" of
"thing" in my response to Evan's post.
[I'd like to thank Professor Fontana for the post that started this
thread. I had responded to his call for data in 1999 but had never seen
the results of the survey until today.]
--
Al in Dallas
R Fontana
> It has always seemed obvious to me that the "thing" in "another thing
> coming" is something other than what is expected: If you think that then
> you have something other than what you expect coming to you, or more
> concisely, you have another thing coming.
Exactly. This is what I meant.
> I don't understand how the "think" crowd fails to understand this
> explanation.
Nor I. "Another thing" is a synonym for "something else", and surely the
think-ists use the term "something else". Note that a number of the
survey participants, particularly younger ones I think, knew the phrase as
"something else coming".
The fact that "another thing coming" and "something else coming" are
thriving throughout the Anglophone world -- it's not just some American
backwater phenomenon -- suggests to me that there is something inherently
sensible to an English speaker about those forms of the expression. I
would guess that "something else coming" arose independently in many
places and did not spread from one place to the rest of the
English-speaking world.
For the curious, here are some examples of "something else coming" I just
got from a Google search. I think that this phrase is actually more
general and flexible than "another think coming" and in some of these uses
I don't think "another think coming" would work as well:
=== begin ===
... if you thought American Pie, or even some of the scenes in Something
About Mary were raunchy, you've got something else coming.
You know if Senator Carr thinks that he's the sole keeper of the student
gate, well then he's got something else coming. [This was by an Australian
writer]
If employers think engineers are sitting around waiting for the next
"feel-good bonding slogan", they've got something else coming:
resignations. [Note that what is 'coming' is not a "think" or thought but
an external experience. Would "another think coming" work here?]
If you thought that you practiced a lot in high school, you have got
something else coming to you.
For anyone who doubted the sound of this new album, they've got something
else coming at them!
"Those were our two biggest problems in the past, so if Guelph thinks they
can just waltz into town and grab a 'gimme' win, they've got something
else coming to them," she added. [From a Canadian writer]
If he thinks that I'm going to sit in this car for four hours listening to
his nagging, then he's got something else coming to him, a walk home.
[Note how much sense "thing" makes here: it describes the *external*
event that the person will experience.]
"But if you come here with the intention of making a fortune, you got
something else coming."
If these guys think that we are just going to let spray us like Flys they
got something else coming to them!
Clinton's foreign policy (what foreign policy) is so poor he doesn't seem
to care about what Russia thinks of what can be viewed as an unprovoked
strike on a very small country. He's got something else coming to him.
[Note absence of 'think' setup.]
If you only play on rookie with the pitch aid on with auto fielding and
call this game easy, you got something else coming. [Note absence of
'think' setup]
=== end ===
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Al in Dallas wrote:
>
> > It has always seemed obvious to me that the "thing" in "another
> > thing coming" is something other than what is expected: If you
> > think that then you have something other than what you expect
> > coming to you, or more concisely, you have another thing coming.
The problem, I think, is that most of us don't see the situation as
one of expecting something coming, so it doesn't make sense to us to
speak of something else coming. It's "if you think this, you would do
well to think again".
> Exactly. This is what I meant.
>
> > I don't understand how the "think" crowd fails to understand this
> > explanation.
>
> Nor I. "Another thing" is a synonym for "something else", and
> surely the think-ists use the term "something else". Note that a
> number of the survey participants, particularly younger ones I
> think, knew the phrase as "something else coming".
I'll take your word on this. That would be a further mutation, due
largely to the fact that "something else coming" would be far more
normal than "another thing coming" in almost any context. For myself,
between the two paraphrases:
If you think I'm going to just sit here and take this, you've got
another thought coming.
and
If you think I'm going to just sit here and take this, you've got
something else coming.
the first seems more reasonable.
> For the curious, here are some examples of "something else coming" I just
> got from a Google search. I think that this phrase is actually more
> general and flexible than "another think coming" and in some of these uses
> I don't think "another think coming" would work as well:
Thanks for the quotes. This does indeed indicate that in the minds of
some (perhaps many), the phrase has changed from "you should think
again" to something more like "you should expect to be surprised by
events". Do you have any idea what the age is of "something else
coming".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The law of supply and demand tells us
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |that when the price of something is
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |artificially set below market level,
|there will soon be none of that thing
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |left--as you may have noticed the
(650)857-7572 |last time you tried to buy something
|for nothing.
| P.J. O'Rourke
P&D Schultz
>
> Thus Spake P&D Schultz:
> > Right. Just like "I saw the lions and tigers at the zoo," and "I saw the
> > lines and tigers as the zoo." Both are spoken simultaneously, neither
> > orthographic form is more correct than the other.
> > However, like the "think/thing" issue, one makes sense and the other
> > doesn't.
> "Lions" is not pronounced in the same way as "lines". It's not my
> fault you speak sloppy.
And "thing" isn't pronounced in the same way as "think" either, so back
at ya.
Anyway, if you think "lions" and "lines" sound essentially different in
extemporaneous speech at normal speed, you are laboring under the common
delusion of believing that the sound that goes through the air is the
same as the theoretical citation pronunciation as it appears in a
dictionary. This "thing/think" issue is proof that that's malarkey.
\\P. Schultz
Jane MacDonald
<Pine.GSO.4.10.101011...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu>,
R Fontana <re...@columbia.edu> wrote:
<snip>
> One of my contentions during the thing/think discussion
was
> that I had never knowingly encountered the "think" version in printed
> text, and that if I ever heard the "think" version I heard it as
"thing".
> A few days ago I was watching part of _Splendor in the Grass_ and I
> noticed for the first time that one of the characters clearly said
> "another think coming" at one point in the dialogue. This is a movie I
had
> seen a zillion times before.)
>
<snip poll results>
I was raised in Texas, and ca. 1975 the usage there worked like
this:
"If you think that, you've got another think coming."
My mother, who was born before WWII, used it frequently--at
me.
Both my parents were highly educated, but both had
immigrated to Texas in the late '50s from Scotland (father) and
Ireland (mother).
Our usage could have come from a misunderstanding of
"another thing coming," or that one could have come from a
misunderstanding of our usage. Since I've still never heard the
"thing" version, I'm inclined to think the "think" version was
earlier, but I surely wouldn't bet on it.
Jane
Jane MacDonald
jane...@excite.com
mpl...@my-deja.com
Long ago I changed from "another thing coming" to "another think
coming." However, if I had known at the time how widespread "another
thing coming" was, I probably would not have bothered changing my usage.
R Fontana
> "Simon R. Hughes" wrote:
> >
> > Thus Spake P&D Schultz:
>
> > > Right. Just like "I saw the lions and tigers at the zoo," and "I saw the
> > > lines and tigers as the zoo." Both are spoken simultaneously, neither
> > > orthographic form is more correct than the other.
> > > However, like the "think/thing" issue, one makes sense and the other
> > > doesn't.
>
> > "Lions" is not pronounced in the same way as "lines". It's not my
> > fault you speak sloppy.
>
> And "thing" isn't pronounced in the same way as "think" either, so back
> at ya.
"Think coming" and "thing coming" sound similar.
P&D Schultz
>
> "Think coming" and "thing coming" sound similar.
They do, huh? I don't think anyone ever noticed that before.
Please return to the original posting in this thread and read all the
follow-ups again. You can re-read them as many times as you like.
\\P. Schultz
Gene Wirchenko
>In alt.usage.english, R Fontana <re...@columbia.edu> wrote
[snip]
>>I'm not sure I understand. The most important point that the "think"
>>people should have learned from the past discussion of this issue is that
>>the "thing" people *do* think the expression with "thing" makes sense. As
Both do.
"You have another think coming.": You'll have to rethink your
position.
"You have another thing coming.": (If you think that,) you're in
a for surprise.
>>I think I said several times last year, or in 1999 rather, "thing" has its
>>ordinary meaning in "another thing coming". I understand that those who
>>know the expression as "think" will have trouble accepting this.
I don't.
>I think that's a fair analysis. I follow all you said, but what I don't
>see is the *sense* with "thing" having its "ordinary meaning". What
>exactly is the "thing", bearing in mind that there must be the
>possibility of "another" one? If you could explain that to me I'd be
>very grateful.
>
>I try to put myself in the position of a thinger and imagine what I
>would think, say, and do about the revelation of the "think" form and
>its adherents. I'm pretty sure I'd see the light and mend my ways, just
>like I did, publicly in this group, over "restauranteur".
>
>Do we have in this group anyone who grew up with "thing" and has now
>changed their mind? Or (for the sake of completeness) anyone who grew up
>with "think" and has now changed their mind?
I'm a "thing" -> "think" convert.
I don't care to answer whether the point has been reached where
both are correct, but given R Fontana's coment:
For a "thing" person (like me) to hear "think" there has to be a
sufficient pause between "think" and "coming", so that, I guess,
phonetically it sounds like a double consonant.
I think that the "think" form came first and the "thing" form is a
corruption of that that has passed into common use.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Gene Wirchenko
>On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:19:39 GMT, Bob Cunningham
><spa...@alt-usage-english.org> wrote:
>
>>On 22 Jan 2001 13:04:56 GMT, c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
>>said:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>But what weight should we put on the opinions of people who ignore the
>>>meanings of the component words when using several of them in phrase?
>>
>>We might say, "We could care less about their opinions."
>
>Momentarily.
Is that the consensus?
Brian Cubbison
In article <v9hk87k...@garrett.hpl.hp.com>, Evan Kirshenbaum
<ev...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> R Fontana <re...@columbia.edu> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Al in Dallas wrote:
>>
>> > It has always seemed obvious to me that the "thing" in "another
>> > thing coming" is something other than what is expected: If you
>> > think that then you have something other than what you expect
>> > coming to you, or more concisely, you have another thing coming.
>
> The problem, I think, is that most of us don't see the situation as
> one of expecting something coming, so it doesn't make sense to us to
> speak of something else coming. It's "if you think this, you would do
> well to think again".
I feel like I'm piling on here, but:
"If you think you can just lie on the couch all day, you've got something
else coming..." What's the first object you had coming?
"If you think that painting looks like a beautiful woman, you've got another
thing coming..." What's the first object you had coming?
The common denominator in all the examples everyone has used is that you
thought in a certain way, but now you must rethink. Only by reverse
engineering can you imagine that these examples mean that you expected to be
receiving one object, but now a different one is coming at you.
That's why the "thinkers" have such a hard time with the logic of the
"thingies."
Brian Cubbison
Syracuse, NY
R Fontana
> I feel like I'm piling on here, but:
>
> "If you think you can just lie on the couch all day, you've got something
> else coming..." What's the first object you had coming?
>
> "If you think that painting looks like a beautiful woman, you've got another
> thing coming..." What's the first object you had coming?
The first thing you "had coming" is the original thought or state of mind.
The "something else" coming might be a new thought, a new state of mind,
or newly experienced conditions that will change your state of mind. No
one ever said that the first (or second) thing coming is an *object*. The
word "thing" is more general than "object". Indeed it's the most general
English noun imaginable, I think. (Objects tend to be concrete, while
things can be abstract.)
Consider also some of the examples of "something else coming" that I
quoted, where it was clear that there was no "think" set up, explicit or
implied; the setup might be an actual first event or experience (so a
"thing coming" seems to suggest "an event experienced"). Admittedly a lot
of the "something else coming" usages had a "think" setup. But it may be
argued that "another thing coming" and "something else coming" are
superior expressions because they are applicable to a wider class of
setups than "another think coming" is (the latter seems to be restricted
to a "think" setup).
> The common denominator in all the examples everyone has used is that you
> thought in a certain way, but now you must rethink.
No; the something else coming/another thing coming has overcome that
limitation.
> Only by reverse
> engineering can you imagine that these examples mean that you expected to be
> receiving one object, but now a different one is coming at you.
Your mistake is in assuming that something that is received must be
characterizable as an "object". Perhaps you have been too heavily
influenced by the jargon associated with certain programming languages.
> That's why the "thinkers" have such a hard time with the logic of the
> "thingies."
Take the Spock ears off. Idioms aren't supposed to be logical. They're
just supposed to make sense.
RJ Valentine
[RF] On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Brian Cubbison wrote:
...
[RF] The first thing you "had coming" is the original thought or state of mind.
[RF] The "something else" coming might be a new thought, a new state of mind,
[RF] or newly experienced conditions that will change your state of mind. No
[RF] one ever said that the first (or second) thing coming is an *object*. The
[RF] word "thing" is more general than "object".
Sounds like fuzzy thinging to me.
[RF] Indeed it's the most general
[RF] English noun imaginable, I think. (Objects tend to be concrete, while
[RF] things can be abstract.)
Like objects of prepositions, games, or contempt, or what cost is no?
[RF] Consider also some of the examples of "something else coming" that I
[RF] quoted, where it was clear that there was no "think" set up, explicit or
[RF] implied; the setup might be an actual first event or experience (so a
[RF] "thing coming" seems to suggest "an event experienced"). Admittedly a lot
[RF] of the "something else coming" usages had a "think" setup. But it may be
[RF] argued that "another thing coming" and "something else coming" are
[RF] superior expressions because they are applicable to a wider class of
[RF] setups than "another think coming" is (the latter seems to be restricted
[RF] to a "think" setup).
Where's the "(some)thing coming" setup for the misle form?
[RF] No; the something else coming/another thing coming has overcome that
[RF] limitation.
For those who have faith in it, I suppose. The think form has some
grounding in English usage.
[RF] Your mistake is in assuming that something that is received must be
[RF] characterizable as an "object".
There's mighty little receivable that isn't so characterizable. My
limited imagination comes up with nothing at all, and even that "nothing"
is the object of a preposition.
[RF] Perhaps you have been too heavily
[RF] influenced by the jargon associated with certain programming languages.
[RF]
You mean the ones where anything receivable is characterizable as an
"object"?
[RF] Take the Spock ears off. Idioms aren't supposed to be logical. They're
[RF] just supposed to make sense.
But the correct idiom shouldn't be penalized for both being logical _and_
making sense. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net?subject=%3Cnews:alt.usage.english%3E%20>
Jerry Friedman
> > Regarding those book titles, I would only say something that I also
> > said last time: the noun "think" is not a part of my everyday
> > language,
>
> Nor mine. Neither is a "poke", and yet I try not to buy a pig in one.
> It wouldn't surprise me if somewhere people cautioned one another not
> to buy a pig in a pack, as that clearly makes more sense.
People write "straight and narrow" all the time.
How about another? There's a chess saying, "Long think, wrong think".
I'd say the use of "think" as a noun corresponds to the uses of
"invite" and "install". None of which I say.
I heard "another think coming" fairly often in my childhood in
Cleveland, and always felt it was one of those idioms with non-standard
grammar that educated people used anyway, like "How do you like them
apples?" and possibly "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," and "Who'd a
thunk it?"
Speaking of Cleveland, I notice that Richard put western Pennsylvania,
even, in the Midwest. Richard, you are due for a revision of your
opinion.
--
Jerry Friedman
jfri...@nnm.cc.nm.nos
Translate nos to us / Traduzca nos en us
and all the disclaimers
Alec "Skitt" P.
"Jerry Friedman" <jfried...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:94q21p$2lm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <v9h1ytt...@garrett.hpl.hp.com>,
> kirsh...@hpl.hp.com wrote:
> > R Fontana <re...@columbia.edu> writes:
> ...
> > > Regarding those book titles, I would only say something that I also
> > > said last time: the noun "think" is not a part of my everyday
> > > language,
> >
> > Nor mine. Neither is a "poke", and yet I try not to buy a pig in one.
> > It wouldn't surprise me if somewhere people cautioned one another not
> > to buy a pig in a pack, as that clearly makes more sense.
>
> People write "straight and narrow" all the time.
Why shouldn't they?
Per http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=straight+and+narrow, it
is
==quote==
Probably alteration of "Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which
leadeth unto life" (Matthew 7:14).
==end quote==
MWCD10 agrees:
Main Entry: straight and narrow
Function: noun
Etymology: probably alteration of strait and
narrow; from the admonition of Matthew 7:14
(AV), "strait is the gate and narrow is the way
which leadeth unto life"
Date: 1930
: the way of propriety and rectitude -- used with
the
AHD4 says about the same.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://i.am/skitt/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
R Fontana
> Speaking of Cleveland, I notice that Richard put western Pennsylvania,
> even, in the Midwest. Richard, you are due for a revision of your
> opinion.
I think western Pennsylvania has more in common with Ohio, culturally
speaking, than it has either with Eastern Pennsylvania or any other part
of the East. Ohio is by definition Midwestern, of course. This is not to
deny the uniqueness of the Pittsburgh region (for example, in its
treatment of the cot/caught matter, it has more in common with the West
than with the Midwest).
Jerry Friedman
"Alec \"Skitt\" P." <sk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> "Jerry Friedman" <jfried...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:94q21p$2lm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <v9h1ytt...@garrett.hpl.hp.com>,
> > kirsh...@hpl.hp.com wrote:
> > > R Fontana <re...@columbia.edu> writes:
> > ...
> > > > Regarding those book titles, I would only say something that I
also
> > > > said last time: the noun "think" is not a part of my everyday
> > > > language,
> > >
> > > Nor mine. Neither is a "poke", and yet I try not to buy a pig in
one.
> > > It wouldn't surprise me if somewhere people cautioned one another
not
> > > to buy a pig in a pack, as that clearly makes more sense.
> >
> > People write "straight and narrow" all the time.
>
> Why shouldn't they?
I didn't say they shouldn't. I was pointing out to Evan Kirshenbaum
that something like his hypothetical "pig in a pack" is real and common.
(I think I've heard other examples, but I can't remember them.) In
fact, I like "straight and narrow" better than "strait and narrow" if
you're not going to quote the whole thing. I draw the line at
"straightjacket", though.
...
Tootsie
Jerry Friedman wrote in message
> "Alec \"Skitt\" P." wrote:
>> "Jerry Friedman" wrote in message
[...]
>> > People write "straight and narrow" all the time.
>> Why shouldn't they?
>I didn't say they shouldn't. I was pointing out to Evan Kirshenbaum
>that something like his hypothetical "pig in a pack" is real and
common.
> (I think I've heard other examples, but I can't remember them.) In
>fact, I like "straight and narrow" better than "strait and narrow" if
>you're not going to quote the whole thing. I draw the line at
>"straightjacket", though.
I would say that "straight and narrow" describes a path, a way of life,
that is straight as well as narrow, and refers to a morally strict code
of behavior.
To make "strait or narrow" is, per Webster's New World Dictionary, "now
rare" as a meaning of the verb "straiten"; it was used, more or less, I
think, in the sense of "hamper."
Is the first phrase a result of a misunderstanding of the second? I
personally have never seen "strait and [or] narrow" until now.
Tootsie
P&D Schultz
> <...>In
> fact, I like "straight and narrow" better than "strait and narrow" if
Both common misinterpretations of "straight and arrow," meaning straight
and in a direct line.
\\P. Schultz
Jane MacDonald
You've got to be kidding.
"Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth into
life, and few there be that find it." Matthew VII, 13, King
James Version. It's in Bartlet's (1955, p. 1052) if you haven't got a
Bible handy.
Jane
Jane MacDonald
jane...@excite.com
Tootsie
Jane MacDonald wrote in message
[...]
>"Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth into
>life, and few there be that find it." Matthew VII, 13, King
>James Version. It's in Bartlet's (1955, p. 1052) if you haven't got a
>Bible handy.
Your verse 13 is the same as verse 14 in my KJV. "Strait" also appears
in Luke 13, 24.
In the Confraternity Edition of the Douay version (Catholic), Matthew 7,
13 says: Enter by the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the
way that leads to destruction, and many there are who enter that way.
14. How narrow the gate and close the way that leads to life! And few
there are who find it. And in Luke 13, 24, we have: Strive to enter by
the narrow gate; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not
be able.
No "strait" or "straight" in Douay. And no "strait and narrow" -- in
exactly those words -- in the KJV.
Interesting. Since "strait" means the same as "narrow" (going by Douay
and the dictionary), is it possible that the word got changed to
"straight" somewhere along the line to add another dimension, so to
speak, to the phrase? Another description of the path we ought to take?
Tootsie
Jane MacDonald
I think you're right. I knew it was biblical, but have used the
"straight and narrow" version in Usenet posts and e-mail on
occasion, though not in formal prose. Until just now, I seem to
have avoided thinking about it. This group is doing me good.
Laura F Spira
The difference in the definitions of the two words surprised me. The
definitions of 'strait' emphasise the aspect of limited space rather than
direction but the entry notes that 'early forms show confusion with
straight'. Straight comes from Old English 'streht' and is related to
stretch. Strait is from the Latin 'stringere' to draw tight.The Chambers
entry for strait begins: 'formerly also, and still erroneously, straight'.
NSOED gives both 'strait and narrow' and 'straight and narrow'. I don't
think I've ever seen the former.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Mike Oliver
> Interesting. Since "strait" means the same as "narrow" (going by Douay
> and the dictionary), is it possible that the word got changed to
> "straight" somewhere along the line to add another dimension, so to
> speak, to the phrase? Another description of the path we ought to take?
If so, it seems just backward from the metaphor. The passage makes
me think of a narrow mountain trail, with lots of switchbacks and
ankle-turning rocks. I don't see any reason to think Jesus is
trying to say that the path to life is direct or predictable.
Jerry Friedman
<Pine.GSO.4.10.101012...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu>,
Well, yesterday I asked a native of Pittsburgh, who said that it isn't
really in either region (it's in Appalachia, and he gave me my choice of
how to pronounce that), but if he had to choose between your
alternatives, he'd choose "Midwest". At which point my other think came
to me.
Incidentally, he didn't know the expression in question, and he filled
in "If you think that, you've got another __ coming" with
"thought"--though he said the natural expression for him is "better
think again". I also asked an Ohioan, who said he was sure he'd heard a
word that fits in there, but it wasn't "think", "thing", or "thought".
N.Mitchum
-----
> rare" as a meaning of the verb "straiten"; it was used, more or less, I
> think, in the sense of "hamper."
>
> Is the first phrase a result of a misunderstanding of the second? I
> personally have never seen "strait and [or] narrow" until now.
>From an early age I knew -- absolutely knew -- that "strait and
narrow" was the one correct spelling. You've seen the biblical
passage quoted, and that was the basis of my belief: strait gate,
narrow way. I admit I had some trouble accepting this argument,
"strait" and "narrow" being nearly synonymous, but the lessons of
childhood die hard.
Today I could probably write "straight and narrow," but I still
wouldn't feel comfortable with it.
----NM
Alec "Skitt" P.
"N.Mitchum" <aj...@lafn.org> wrote in message news:3A71D6...@lafn.org...
> Tootsie wrote:
> -----
> > To make "strait or narrow" is, per Webster's New World Dictionary, "now
> > rare" as a meaning of the verb "straiten"; it was used, more or less, I
> > think, in the sense of "hamper."
> >
> > Is the first phrase a result of a misunderstanding of the second? I
> > personally have never seen "strait and [or] narrow" until now.
> >.....
>
> From an early age I knew -- absolutely knew -- that "strait and
> narrow" was the one correct spelling.
Yes, at one time it was. So was "leadeth" for "leads".
> You've seen the biblical
> passage quoted, and that was the basis of my belief: strait gate,
> narrow way. I admit I had some trouble accepting this argument,
> "strait" and "narrow" being nearly synonymous, but the lessons of
> childhood die hard.
>
> Today I could probably write "straight and narrow," but I still
> wouldn't feel comfortable with it.
Would you feel comfortable writing "leadeth" instead of "leads"?
N.Mitchum
-----
> > Today I could probably write "straight and narrow," but I still
> > wouldn't feel comfortable with it.
>
> Would you feel comfortable writing "leadeth" instead of "leads"?
No. I wasn't taught from an early age to write "leadeth," was
never told that "leads" was wrong, and never looked down on those
who wrote "leads." As I said, old habits die hard: "strait" had
become an engrained habit; "leadeth" had not.
----NM
Tootsie
Mike Oliver wrote in message
I remember a children's religious coloring book from when I was small
that had a drawing of Jesus standing by a place where one path broke
into two. One of the paths looked easy -- smooth, straight, wide, lined
with tempting things (I seem to remember a circus tent in the
background). The other path was narrow, rocky, twisting, and climbing.
The written message was something to the effect that the harder path was
the way of Jesus, and that we shouldn't be tempted by what looked easy
and exciting.
With that in mind, and with the comments made here, I'm beginning to
think that the "straight" in today's "straight and narrow" (a phrase
which refers to a morally strict code of behavior) is used in the sense
of "honest, sincere, upright." Thus the path would not, by definition,
be direct.
What do you think? Are we getting closer? And have we agreed that
"strait" is just an older way of spelling the word we now use?
Tootsie
P&D Schultz
> I remember a children's religious coloring book from when I was small
> that had a drawing of Jesus standing by a place where one path broke
> into two. One of the paths looked easy -- smooth, straight, wide, lined
> with tempting things (I seem to remember a circus tent in the
> background). <...>
That zaps my synapses. You're Catholic. Right?
\\P. Schultz
Mike Oliver
> What do you think? Are we getting closer? And have we agreed that
> "strait" is just an older way of spelling the word we now use?
Oh no, I don't think so on the last point. "Strait is the gate, and
narrow is the way" -- this looks like classic Biblical repetition
to me. This is not a pure example of it, since the "gate" and
the "way" are not the same thing, but it was very common among
the writers to say things twice -- it was considered a point of
style if I remember correctly.
Jane MacDonald
Tootsie wrote:
<snip>
> What do you think? Are we getting closer? And have we
> agreed that
> "strait" is just an older way of spelling the word we now use?
Uh, no.
"Strait," the biblical word, meant "narrow." (AHD4, def. 2.)
Now it is used mostly to describe a narrow body of water
separating two points of land--the "Strait of Gibraltar." Sailors
often refer to such places as "narrows." Comes from ME
"streit," from Latin "strictus." In the Bible verse, the gate was
narrow (strait) and so was the road. So is a "straitjacket." A
businessman in financial trouble is in "dire straits," meaning
he's caught in a narrow bind.
"Straight," the word with a "g," comes from ME
"stregt," pp of "streechen," to stretch. (OUD3, 1955.)
AHD4 lists "Straight and narrow" as "probably alteration of"
the Bible verse (Matt. VII, 14.)
I would call it a simple case of the kind of corruption that goes
on all the time. "Straight and narrow," as we use it now,
meaning the "way of proper conduct and moral integrity
(AHD4)," has become perfectly respectable through long use--a
"cast-iron" idiom, Fowler might call it. The allusion to the Bible
verse is pretty clear, I think, but the two words, "strait" and
"straight," are not the same, and never were.
Tootsie
Mike Oliver wrote in message
You may believe this or not, Mike, but when I typed that last paragraph,
I was not thinking straight -- my 3-year-old grandson was trying to get
my attention (and got it).
I don't agree with my last sentence either.
(I suppose I could have bluffed my way out of this, but I'm just not a
good bluffer -- at least not "in English usage." Cards are another
matter.)
Tootsie
Tootsie
Jane MacDonald wrote in message
>Tootsie wrote:
>> What do you think? Are we getting closer? And have we
>> agreed that
>> "strait" is just an older way of spelling the word we now use?
>Uh, no.
[snip Jane's very logical reasons for saying "Uh, no."
Jane,
Please read my reply to Mike Oliver. That should explain my lapse. I'll
email you a copy in case the reply to Mike doesn't show up on your
server.
Toosie
Tootsie
P&D Schultz wrote in message
Yes, but I didn't convert until I was an adult. (Long story.) However, I
went to a Catholic grade school for several years -- St. Anthony's
Lithuanian Catholic School, on West Vernor at 25th, in Detroit. Did you
ever see that school/church? The school (eight grades, no kindergarten)
was on the first floor (two grades per room) and the church was
upstairs. Most of the students (including me) did not go to kindergarten
at all -- it was not a legal requirement at the time. I think it is now.
The "Lithuanian" was because of the Lithuanian population that settled
in the area right after WWII. They (along with others) were commonly
called "DPs" which meant "Displaced Persons."
Does any of that ring a bell, P.?
Tootsie
Peter Moylan
>
>"N.Mitchum" <aj...@lafn.org> wrote in message news:3A71D6...@lafn.org...
>> Tootsie wrote:
>> -----
>> > To make "strait or narrow" is, per Webster's New World Dictionary, "now
>> > rare" as a meaning of the verb "straiten"; it was used, more or less, I
>> > think, in the sense of "hamper."
>> >
>> > Is the first phrase a result of a misunderstanding of the second? I
>> > personally have never seen "strait and [or] narrow" until now.
>> >.....
>>
>> From an early age I knew -- absolutely knew -- that "strait and
>> narrow" was the one correct spelling.
>
>Yes, at one time it was. So was "leadeth" for "leads".
That's hardly a good analogy. "Leadeth" and "leads" mean the
same thing. I don't think you'll find anyone prepared to argue that
"strait" and "straight" have a meaning in common.
If you must update the saying, try something like "tight and narrow".
I myself prefer "crooked and narrow": it's not an exact equivalent,
but it gets the basic meaning across.
If you're trying to catch the attention of the younger set, a good
substitute for "the strait and narrow path" might be "the long
and winding road".
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au
Bob Cunningham
Moylan) said:
[...]
>I don't think you'll find anyone prepared to argue that
>"strait" and "straight" have a meaning in common.
_Random House Webster's Unabridged_ gives as alternative spellings for
"straitjacket" and "strait-laced" "straightjacket" and
"straight-laced".
Tangentially, _RHWU_ says that one synonym of the noun "strait" is
"isthmus". That seems dead wrong to me. By their own definitions:
isthmus - a narrow strip of land, bordered on both sides
by water, connecting two larger bodies of land.
strait - a narrow passage of water connecting two large
bodies of water.
It seems to me that "strait" and "isthmus", far from being synonyms,
are antithetically related.
I see now, though, that _NSOED_ has for "strait" "A narrow strip of
land with water on each side, an isthmus", but it labels it "Now
poetic" and "rare".
How many people would say "strait" when they mean "isthmus"?
"Isthmus of Gibraltar"? "Strait of Panama"?
Alec "Skitt" P.
"Tootsie" <too...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:94titp$sg6$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> The "Lithuanian" was because of the Lithuanian population that settled
> in the area right after WWII. They (along with others) were commonly
> called "DPs" which meant "Displaced Persons."
>
> Does any of that ring a bell, P.?
It does with me -- I was an official DP.
K. Edgcombe
>> Tootsie wrote:
>> -----
>> > To make "strait or narrow" is, per Webster's New World Dictionary, "now
>> > rare" as a meaning of the verb "straiten"; it was used, more or less, I
>> > think, in the sense of "hamper."
>> >
>> > Is the first phrase a result of a misunderstanding of the second? I
>> > personally have never seen "strait and [or] narrow" until now.
>> >.....
>>
>> From an early age I knew -- absolutely knew -- that "strait and
>> narrow" was the one correct spelling.
>
>Yes, at one time it was. So was "leadeth" for "leads".
>
But when the word was "leadeth" it meant the same as "leads" does now. Whereas
"strait" and "straight" have never meant the same thing, have they?
Do you write "straight-laced"? Whatever could it mean?
Katy
Mike Oliver
> "Tootsie" <too...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
> news:94titp$sg6$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > The "Lithuanian" was because of the Lithuanian population that settled
> > in the area right after WWII. They (along with others) were commonly
> > called "DPs" which meant "Displaced Persons."
> >
> > Does any of that ring a bell, P.?
>
> It does with me -- I was an official DP.
So then were all DPs -- Lithuanians and Letts?
Alec "Skitt" P.
"Mike Oliver" <oli...@math.ucla.edu> wrote in message
news:3A7473F6...@math.ucla.edu...
No, there were DPs from many nations, all fleeing the Big Neighbor from the
East.
mpl...@my-deja.com
Well, the AHD4 has the spelling _straight-laced,_ at
http://www.bartleby.com/61/7/S0790700.html . It means "strait-laced."
They also have _straightjacket,_ at
http://www.bartleby.com/61/6/S0790600.html . Meaning,
unsurprisingly, "straitjacket."
(That these two spellings are to be found in the AHD4 was pointed out
by another poster to this thread, by the way.)
One presumes that dictionary's Usage Panel found nothing about these
usages worth commenting upon.
For what it's worth, a search on Google turned up the following results:
"strait-laced" 2,400
"straight-laced" 6,850
"straitjacket" 17,900
"straightjacket" 10,200
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
K. Edgcombe
>In article <951o0c$nk4$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
> ke...@cus.cam.ac.uk (K. Edgcombe) wrote:
>>
>> Do you write "straight-laced"? Whatever could it mean?
>
>http://www.bartleby.com/61/7/S0790700.html . It means "strait-laced."
>
>They also have _straightjacket,_ at
>http://www.bartleby.com/61/6/S0790600.html . Meaning,
>unsurprisingly, "straitjacket."
>
>
>"strait-laced" 2,400
>"straight-laced" 6,850
>
>"straitjacket" 17,900
>"straightjacket" 10,200
Yes, I know the spelling is changing (note that both entries appear to imply
that "strait" is the basic form). I was only saying (a) that "strait" and
"straight" on their own do not mean the same thing and (b) that the lacing and
the jacket are both strait rather than straight. This is another example of a
spelling change that makes a word harder to understand, and I think it's a
pity.
Katy