You have another think/thing coming

[occam]

Think or thing? That is the question that popped to my mind when I heard
it clearly enunciated as: "They have another think coming"

Apparently both are in use. This is what Meriam-Webster says:

"Those who use think think those who use thing have another think coming
if they think they're right in using thing—and vice versa. "

source:
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-another-think-coming-or-another-thing-coming>

Is there a consensus in AUE?


---
P.S. Google Ngram perspective:

https://tinyurl.com/5n8vpnxm

[Peter Moylan]

On 16/11/22 20:47, occam wrote:
> Think or thing? That is the question that popped to my mind when I heard
> it clearly enunciated as: "They have another think coming"
>
> Apparently both are in use. This is what Meriam-Webster says:
>
> "Those who use think think those who use thing have another think coming
> if they think they're right in using thing—and vice versa. "
>
> source:
> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-another-think-coming-or-another-thing-coming>
>
> Is there a consensus in AUE?

Think.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[occam]

That made sense the moment I heard it said. I have to admit that I was a
'thing' user until then. I am thinking of changing camp.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-11-16 10:02:49 +0000, occam said:

> On 16/11/2022 10:58, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 16/11/22 20:47, occam wrote:
>>> Think or thing? That is the question that popped to my mind when I heard
>>> it clearly enunciated as: "They have another think coming"
>>>
>>> Apparently both are in use. This is what Meriam-Webster says:
>>>
>>> "Those who use think think those who use thing have another think coming
>>> if they think they're right in using thing—and vice versa. "
>>>
>>> source:
>>> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-another-think-coming-or-another-thing-coming>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there a consensus in AUE?
>>
>> Think.

That's also what I thing.

>>
>
> That made sense the moment I heard it said. I have to admit that I was a
> 'thing' user until then. I am thinking of changing camp.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[phil]

It was always think in my family, usually in a form along the lines of
"If you think [that] then you've got another think coming".

[Dingbat]

On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 2:15:31 AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-11-16 10:02:49 +0000, occam said:
>
> > On 16/11/2022 10:58, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> On 16/11/22 20:47, occam wrote:
> >>> Think or thing? That is the question that popped to my mind when I heard
> >>> it clearly enunciated as: "They have another think coming"
> >>>
> >>> Apparently both are in use. This is what Meriam-Webster says:
> >>>
> >>> "Those who use think think those who use thing have another think coming
> >>> if they think they're right in using thing—and vice versa. "
> >>>
> >>> source:
> >>> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-another-think-coming-or-another-thing-coming>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Is there a consensus in AUE?
> >>
> >> Think.
> That's also what I thing.
>

I should thing so:-)
>
I have another think coming:
"You have another fink coming" would get the Mafia's attention:-)

> >
> > That made sense the moment I heard it said. I have to admit that I was a
> > 'thing' user until then. I am thinking of changing camp.
> --

Good thinging:-)
>
But a new think could make you lose your mind if novelty is as hazardous
as this suggests:
>
Everybody's talking 'bout a new way of walkin'
Do you want to lose your mind?
<https://www.google.com/search?q=walk+right+in+lyrics>

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Iggzackly

[Peter T. Daniels]

Never heard it with "thing." (What would it mean?)

Except presumably at a birthday party.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 16.11.2022 kl. 12.56 skrev Dingbat:

> Good thinging:-)

"To thing" is actually an English verb loaned from Danish. It means
"discuss" in relation to politics. "Tinget" was in previous centuries a
get-together of villagers (men) to sit and discuss matters of importance
to the comunity. Each village would have a "ting".

Today we have "Folketinget" which is our Parliament.

I can't find it in the online dictionaries that I use, but I know that I
found it once some time ago.

--
Bertel

[Jerry Friedman]

On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 2:47:28 AM UTC-7, occam wrote:
> Think or thing? That is the question that popped to my mind when I heard
> it clearly enunciated as: "They have another think coming"
>
> Apparently both are in use. This is what Meriam-Webster says:
>
> "Those who use think think those who use thing have another think coming
> if they think they're right in using thing—and vice versa. "
>
> source:
> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-another-think-coming-or-another-thing-coming>
>
> Is there a consensus in AUE?

...

At one time this was discussed as frequently and fruitlessly here as
whether hot dogs and hamburgers are sandwiches. I was a "think"er,
and I'm glad to see that a consensus for "think" seems to have
appeared.

--
Jerry Friedman

[occam]

...except on Ngram. Unless you produce some nifty 'rate of change'
stats. (I realise AUE is not the same as Ngram, however there are more
of them than there are of us.)

[Adam Funk]

I'm familiar with that kind of thing (þing) from reading some
Icelandic literature, but I don't think I've ever come across that
verb in English.

(I remember from Njal's Saga that when the Althing decided to convert
Iceland to Christianity, it also banned the exposure of unwanted
infants & the eating of horsemeat.)


--
Cats don't have friends. They have co-conspirators.
http://www.gocomics.com/getfuzzy/2015/05/31

[Ross Clark]

I'm with "think" too.

OED shows both "think" and "thing" versions first appearing in the
1890s, with the latter "arising from a misapprehension" of the former.

Perhaps there was a feeling that using "think" as a noun must be wrong;
maybe even some influence of the common non-standard "-think"
pronunciation of words like "something" and "nothing". So "think" has
been repeatedly "corrected" to "thing" until people are no longer sure
which is the original.

[Jerry Friedman]

I was talking about the consensus in AUE, which you mentioned.

I thought some of those ngrams for "another thing coming" might have
a different meaning, but at GB almost all of them do mean "another think
coming".

--
Jerry Friedman

[Sam Plusnet]

On 16-Nov-22 19:12, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2022-11-16, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>
>> Den 16.11.2022 kl. 12.56 skrev Dingbat:
>>
>>> Good thinging:-)
>>
>> "To thing" is actually an English verb loaned from Danish. It means
>> "discuss" in relation to politics. "Tinget" was in previous centuries a
>> get-together of villagers (men) to sit and discuss matters of importance
>> to the comunity. Each village would have a "ting".
>>
>> Today we have "Folketinget" which is our Parliament.
>>
>> I can't find it in the online dictionaries that I use, but I know that I
>> found it once some time ago.
>
> I'm familiar with that kind of thing (þing) from reading some
> Icelandic literature, but I don't think I've ever come across that
> verb in English.
>
> (I remember from Njal's Saga that when the Althing decided to convert
> Iceland to Christianity, it also banned the exposure of unwanted
> infants & the eating of horsemeat.)

I thought that, at that time in Iceland, you pretty much had to eat
whatever you could get your hands on.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Sam Plusnet]

On 16-Nov-22 9:47, occam wrote:
> Think or thing? That is the question that popped to my mind when I heard
> it clearly enunciated as: "They have another think coming"
>
> Apparently both are in use. This is what Meriam-Webster says:
>
> "Those who use think think those who use thing have another think coming
> if they think they're right in using thing—and vice versa. "
>
> source:
> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-another-think-coming-or-another-thing-coming>
>
> Is there a consensus in AUE?

"Think".

"Thing" is just an eggcorn that has taken root in some places.


--
Sam Plusnet

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <tl3eub$2e15v$1...@dont-email.me>,

Ross Clark <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>Perhaps there was a feeling that using "think" as a noun must be wrong;
>maybe even some influence of the common non-standard "-think"
>pronunciation of words like "something" and "nothing". So "think" has
>been repeatedly "corrected" to "thing" until people are no longer sure
>which is the original.

Or indeed people no longer *care* what the "original" was. It's an
idiom, it doesn't have to make analytic sense.

And the geminate consonant in /-iNk kVm-/ is unusual and hard to
pronounce; plenty of examples of where long consonants get shortened
over time.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wol...@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

[Ken Blake]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 08:50:28 +1300, Ross Clark <benl...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:

>On 17/11/2022 4:03 a.m., Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 2:47:28 AM UTC-7, occam wrote:
>>> Think or thing? That is the question that popped to my mind when I heard
>>> it clearly enunciated as: "They have another think coming"
>>>
>>> Apparently both are in use. This is what Meriam-Webster says:
>>>
>>> "Those who use think think those who use thing have another think coming
>>> if they think they're right in using thing—and vice versa. "
>>>
>>> source:
>>> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-another-think-coming-or-another-thing-coming>
>>>
>>> Is there a consensus in AUE?
>> ...
>>
>> At one time this was discussed as frequently and fruitlessly here as
>> whether hot dogs and hamburgers are sandwiches. I was a "think"er,
>> and I'm glad to see that a consensus for "think" seems to have
>> appeared.
>>
>
>I'm with "think" too.

I'm withthink on a star.

[bil...@shaw.ca]

Don't change, at least not that way. M-W is correct in saying it's used both ways,
Most people, I suspect, hear it the way they use it. But since both ways mean
the same thing, you don't have to worry about it except when it's in print, and
even then, since they have the same meaning, you don't need to worry about it.

I used to be a "thing" person and have gradually changed to "think" over the years,
but I also recognize that it doesn't matter, since both the "thing" people and the
"think" people will understand exactly what you mean.

bill

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

I don't understand what "have a think coming" means, either, but I'm not
a native speaker, so I just let it go, and learned how the whole phrase
is used.

--
What Phrenzy in my Bosom rag'd,
And by what Care to be asswag'd?
-- Sappho, transl. Addison (1711)
What was it that my distracted heart most wanted?
-- transl. Barnard (1958)

[Peter Moylan]

A frozen-to-death baby probably tastes better than a horse.

[lar3ryca]

On 2022-11-16 16:03, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 2:02:54 AM UTC-8, occam wrote:
>> On 16/11/2022 10:58, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 16/11/22 20:47, occam wrote:
>>>> Think or thing? That is the question that popped to my mind when I heard
>>>> it clearly enunciated as: "They have another think coming"
>>>>
>>>> Apparently both are in use. This is what Meriam-Webster says:
>>>>
>>>> "Those who use think think those who use thing have another think coming
>>>> if they think they're right in using thing—and vice versa. "
>>>>
>>>> source:
>>>> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-another-think-coming-or-another-thing-coming>
>>>>
>>>> Is there a consensus in AUE?
>>>
>>> Think.
>>>
>> That made sense the moment I heard it said. I have to admit that I was a
>> 'thing' user until then. I am thinking of changing camp.
>
> Don't change, at least not that way. M-W is correct in saying it's used both ways,
> Most people, I suspect, hear it the way they use it. But since both ways mean
> the same thing, you don't have to worry about it except when it's in print, and
> even then, since they have the same meaning, you don't need to worry about it.

Thing and think do not have the same meaning. I grant that the phrase
means the same, but only 'thing' makes sense.

We did this to death several times in the last 25 or 30 years.
Are we going to do 'cut and dry' vs. 'cut and dried' too?

> I used to be a "thing" person and have gradually changed to "think" over the years,
> but I also recognize that it doesn't matter, since both the "thing" people and the
> "think" people will understand exactly what you mean.

--
The first rule of Synonym Club is:
You don't talk about, mention, speak of, discuss, natter or chat about
Synonym Club.

[arthurvv vart]

"Think" is correct. But "thing" does exist. At least in a song by Judas Priest
called "You Got Another Thing Coming".

[Peter Moylan]

I'll have to have a think about that. Isn't it true that the other thing
you have coming is a think? What other kind of thing would qualify?

"If that's what you think, you have another thing coming. See, here it
comes now. A four by two upside the head."

[Hibou]

Le 16/11/2022 à 09:47, occam a écrit :
>
> Think or thing? That is the question that popped to my mind when I heard
> it clearly enunciated as: "They have another think coming"
>
> Apparently both are in use. This is what Meriam-Webster says:
>
> "Those who use think think those who use thing have another think coming
> if they think they're right in using thing—and vice versa. "
>
> source:
> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-another-think-coming-or-another-thing-coming>
>
> Is there a consensus in AUE?

'Think', I think.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 16.11.2022 kl. 21.16 skrev Sam Plusnet:

> I thought that, at that time in Iceland, you pretty much had to eat
> whatever you could get your hands on.

You make it sound as if they were starving. Didn't they have sheep back
then? They certainly had fish and birds.

--
Bertel

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 17.11.2022 kl. 06.59 skrev lar3ryca:

>> Don't change, at least not that way. M-W is correct in saying it's
>> used both ways,
>> Most people, I suspect, hear it the way they use it. But since both
>> ways mean
>> the same thing, you don't have to worry about it except when it's in
>> print, and
>> even then, since they have the same meaning, you don't need to worry
>> about it.

> Thing and think do not have the same meaning. I grant that the phrase
> means the same, but only 'thing' makes sense.

I agree that the meaning is the same, but I don't agree that "thing" is
meaningless. You say so yourself: "I grant that the phrase means the same".

--
Bertel

[Dingbat]

but not in other contexts!
Thing again.
It's not what you thing.
I thing, therefore I am.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2022 23:59:50 -0600, lar3ryca <la...@invalid.ca> wrote:

>On 2022-11-16 16:03, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 2:02:54 AM UTC-8, occam wrote:
>>> On 16/11/2022 10:58, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>> On 16/11/22 20:47, occam wrote:
>>>>> Think or thing? That is the question that popped to my mind when I heard
>>>>> it clearly enunciated as: "They have another think coming"
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently both are in use. This is what Meriam-Webster says:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Those who use think think those who use thing have another think coming
>>>>> if they think they're right in using thing—and vice versa. "
>>>>>
>>>>> source:
>>>>> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-another-think-coming-or-another-thing-coming>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a consensus in AUE?
>>>>
>>>> Think.
>>>>
>>> That made sense the moment I heard it said. I have to admit that I was a
>>> 'thing' user until then. I am thinking of changing camp.
>>
>> Don't change, at least not that way. M-W is correct in saying it's used both ways,
>> Most people, I suspect, hear it the way they use it. But since both ways mean
>> the same thing, you don't have to worry about it except when it's in print, and
>> even then, since they have the same meaning, you don't need to worry about it.
>
>Thing and think do not have the same meaning. I grant that the phrase
>means the same, but only 'thing' makes sense.
>
>We did this to death several times in the last 25 or 30 years.
>Are we going to do 'cut and dry' vs. 'cut and dried' too?

Just this morning I read about a "hare-brained decision". It's
possible, if I read enough other reports about that decision, someone
would write that it's a "hair-brained decision".

Particularly if the reports are written by Americans because there are
Americans who have never heard of a "hare".
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Jackrabbit, innit?

[Jerry Friedman]

On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 7:21:34 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-11-17 14:15:49 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

...

> > Just this morning I read about a "hare-brained decision". It's
> > possible, if I read enough other reports about that decision, someone
> > would write that it's a "hair-brained decision".
> >
> > Particularly if the reports are written by Americans because there are
> > Americans who have never heard of a "hare".

> Jackrabbit, innit?

It is. I'll bet the majority of Americans don't know jackrabbits are hares.
On the other hand all (for quite large values of "all") Americans know that
hares are something like rabbits, because of Bugs Bunny.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Dingbat]

I had never seen a hare either.
I encountered them in fiction:
The tortoise and the hare.
March hare.

Scotland spelled hare as hair till the 18th century and thereby used the
spelling hairbrained.
“If hairbrained courage, and an outrageous spirit of gallantry, can make
good his pretensions to the high lineage he claims ..." - Walter Scott
At one time, it could mean either flighty/ impetuous or reckless.
https://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-hai1.htm

FWIW, the Looney Tunes cartoon Mississippi Hare featured a rabbit and no hare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Hare

[Tony Cooper]

I doubt if "all" or "large values of all", make that connection. Bugs
is that "silly wabbit".

The hare who raced the tortise is probably more familiar than Bugs as
a hare.

I don't think the younger generation is even all that aware of Bugs.
Based on the cartoons that my grandsons watched, Looney Tunes was far
down on the list if even on the list.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

They certainly had starvation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laki

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 17.11.2022 kl. 15.15 skrev Tony Cooper:

> Just this morning I read about a "hare-brained decision". It's
> possible, if I read enough other reports about that decision, someone
> would write that it's a "hair-brained decision".

In Danish we have the word "hårdknude" which means "hard-knot". It's
used when a problem has become unsolvable. Some Danes write and say
"hårknude" which means "hair-knot". "Hård" and "hår" are pronounced the
exact same way.

--
Bertel

[CDB]

On 11/16/2022 9:53 AM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Dingbat:

>> Good thinging:-)

> "To thing" is actually an English verb loaned from Danish. It means
> "discuss" in relation to politics. "Tinget" was in previous centuries
> a get-together of villagers (men) to sit and discuss matters of
> importance

But "thing" in "another thing coming" is a noun, used humorously or in
error for the non-standard noun "a think". I don't know of an English
verb "to thing".

> to the comunity. Each village would have a "ting".

> Today we have "Folketinget" which is our Parliament.

> I can't find it in the online dictionaries that I use, but I know
> that I found it once some time ago.

The Online Etymological Dictionary says "thing", the noun, is Old
English, derived from proto-germanic "thinga", assembly.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/thing

[Jerry Friedman]

On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 7:47:17 AM UTC-7, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 06:37:17 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
> <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 7:21:34 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> On 2022-11-17 14:15:49 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
> >...
> >
> >> > Just this morning I read about a "hare-brained decision". It's
> >> > possible, if I read enough other reports about that decision, someone
> >> > would write that it's a "hair-brained decision".
> >> >
> >> > Particularly if the reports are written by Americans because there are
> >> > Americans who have never heard of a "hare".
> >
> >> Jackrabbit, innit?
> >
> >It is. I'll bet the majority of Americans don't know jackrabbits are hares.
> >On the other hand all (for quite large values of "all") Americans know that
> >hares are something like rabbits, because of Bugs Bunny.

> I doubt if "all" or "large values of all", make that connection. Bugs
> is that "silly wabbit".

But there were "hare" puns on the show.

(And I think you may be making a mistake almost as important as the
origin of the Clampetts. Bugs was a "wascal wabbit". The "silly rabbit"
was in the Trix commercials.)

> The hare who raced the tortise is probably more familiar than Bugs as
> a hare.

Not so sure.

> I don't think the younger generation is even all that aware of Bugs.
> Based on the cartoons that my grandsons watched, Looney Tunes was far
> down on the list if even on the list.

Shocking. What good are cultural references?

Yesterday I assigned a problem in the physics textbook that notes that
you can't stand next to large amounts of molten lava because the thermal
radiation would kill you. I remarked that the knowledge would be useful
if any of the students ever had to destroy a ring. Now I'm wondering
whether the "new" movies of /The Lord of the Rings/ are ancient history to
my students.

(I don't know whether you'd have gotten that one, but you're unlikely to
take my class.)

--
Jerry Friedman

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 07:57:43 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman

<jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 7:47:17 AM UTC-7, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 06:37:17 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
>> <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 7:21:34 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> >> On 2022-11-17 14:15:49 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
>> >...
>> >
>> >> > Just this morning I read about a "hare-brained decision". It's
>> >> > possible, if I read enough other reports about that decision, someone
>> >> > would write that it's a "hair-brained decision".
>> >> >
>> >> > Particularly if the reports are written by Americans because there are
>> >> > Americans who have never heard of a "hare".
>> >
>> >> Jackrabbit, innit?
>> >
>> >It is. I'll bet the majority of Americans don't know jackrabbits are hares.
>> >On the other hand all (for quite large values of "all") Americans know that
>> >hares are something like rabbits, because of Bugs Bunny.
>
>> I doubt if "all" or "large values of all", make that connection. Bugs
>> is that "silly wabbit".
>
>But there were "hare" puns on the show.

Your view is that of an adult of a certain age who, perhaps, watched
those cartoons but is not in close contact (as far as I know) with the
rising generation other than those who attend your classes. Even in
that connection, are cartoon characters discussed?

My view, while also limited, is based on close observance of family
members who passed through the age of frequent cartoon watching. One
family member, though, is still of that age.

I consider him to be exceptionally bright (as all grandfathers
consider their grandchildren to be) but I'm sure he would fail a test
that required him to name 10 Looney Tunes characters. But, then, you
and I might fail a test requiring us to name 10 currently-popular
cartoon characters.

My exposure to Bugs Bunny cartoons was at the movie theaters when
cartoons were a regular part of the program. My son and daughter (now
in their 50s) were of a generation where the cartoons were no longer a
regular part of the movie theater programs.

My son, daughter, and - now - grandsons were/are exposed to cartoons
on television. The Looney Tunes cartoons might have been on
television, and might still be on television, but they have been
supplanted by a completely different kind of popular cartoon figures.

Even "television" is no longer the primary home of cartoons. To have
access to a variety of cartoons on the box, a cable channel is pretty
much necessary.

>(And I think you may be making a mistake almost as important as the
>origin of the Clampetts. Bugs was a "wascal wabbit". The "silly rabbit"
>was in the Trix commercials.)

My mistakes in identifying where the Clampetts might have come from,
or where the "silly wabbit" term was seen, are not something I am
going to count as even remotely "important".

Besides, wasn't it "wascally wabbit", not "wascal wabbit"? If so, is
that an important mistake to make?

The family members mentioned above were much more likely to be exposed
to Bugs Bunny on a Trix commercial on television than to any other
source.

>
>> The hare who raced the tortise is probably more familiar than Bugs as
>> a hare.
>
>Not so sure.
>
>> I don't think the younger generation is even all that aware of Bugs.
>> Based on the cartoons that my grandsons watched, Looney Tunes was far
>> down on the list if even on the list.
>
>Shocking. What good are cultural references?

They are to be treasured by those of us who were of age when they were
part of our culture. Mention of them is, at best, tolerated (perhaps
with an eye-roll) by the later generations.

>
>Yesterday I assigned a problem in the physics textbook that notes that
>you can't stand next to large amounts of molten lava because the thermal
>radiation would kill you. I remarked that the knowledge would be useful
>if any of the students ever had to destroy a ring. Now I'm wondering
>whether the "new" movies of /The Lord of the Rings/ are ancient history to
>my students.
>
>(I don't know whether you'd have gotten that one, but you're unlikely to
>take my class.)

No, not because I have not taken your class, but because I have never
seen any of the Lord of the Rings series. Something to do with
fantasy and Tolkein, I know, but neither fantasy of this sort nor
Tolkein has any interest to me.

Saying that I have no interest in Tolkein might be shocking to some
here, but my reading/watching interests are not the same as many in
this group. I don't consider that to be a "bad thing".

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 6:23:00 PM UTC-5, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 4:47:28 AM UTC-5, occam wrote:

> >> Think or thing? That is the question that popped to my mind when I heard
> >> it clearly enunciated as: "They have another think coming"
> >> Apparently both are in use. This is what Meriam-Webster says:
> >> "Those who use think think those who use thing have another think coming
> >> if they think they're right in using thing—and vice versa. "
> >> source:
> >> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-another-think-coming-or-another-thing-coming>
> >> Is there a consensus in AUE?
> >> ---
> >> P.S. Google Ngram perspective:
> >> https://tinyurl.com/5n8vpnxm
> > Never heard it with "thing." (What would it mean?)
>
> I don't understand what "have a think coming" means, either, but I'm not

Nothing.

It's _another_ think.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 12:06:15 PM UTC-5, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 07:57:43 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
> <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >(And I think you may be making a mistake almost as important as the
> >origin of the Clampetts. Bugs was a "wascal wabbit". The "silly rabbit"
> >was in the Trix commercials.)
>
> My mistakes in identifying where the Clampetts might have come from,
> or where the "silly wabbit" term was seen, are not something I am
> going to count as even remotely "important".

As Jerry said, they are almost equally important.

[Sam Plusnet]

People would starve in much more fertile lands from time to time.
Iceland was pretty much on the edge of what agriculture could handle then.
It didn't help once they had chopped down all the trees - which they
managed in the first few decades.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Tony Cooper]

And, in my opinion, equally unimportant.

[Jerry Friedman]

There's a big difference between being able to name ten characters
from a particular studio and noticing from puns that a hare must be
something like a rabbit.

> My exposure to Bugs Bunny cartoons was at the movie theaters when
> cartoons were a regular part of the program. My son and daughter (now
> in their 50s) were of a generation where the cartoons were no longer a
> regular part of the movie theater programs.
>
> My son, daughter, and - now - grandsons were/are exposed to cartoons
> on television. The Looney Tunes cartoons might have been on
> television, and might still be on television, but they have been
> supplanted by a completely different kind of popular cartoon figures.

OK, I'm not in touch with what people of my students' age watched
as children.

> Even "television" is no longer the primary home of cartoons. To have
> access to a variety of cartoons on the box, a cable channel is pretty
> much necessary.

I rather suspect that cable or other access to cartoons is quite common
in the U.S. now, as access to broadcast TV was in my childhood.

> >(And I think you may be making a mistake almost as important as the
> >origin of the Clampetts. Bugs was a "wascal wabbit". The "silly rabbit"
> >was in the Trix commercials.)

> My mistakes in identifying where the Clampetts might have come from,
> or where the "silly wabbit" term was seen, are not something I am
> going to count as even remotely "important".

AS PTD said, the mistakes are of about equal importance, which is very
low.

> Besides, wasn't it "wascally wabbit", not "wascal wabbit"?

It appears you're right.

> If so, is that an important mistake to make?

V. supra.

> The family members mentioned above were much more likely to be exposed
> to Bugs Bunny on a Trix commercial on television than to any other
> source.

...

I think I see the problem. The rabbit in the Trix commercials wasn't Bugs
Bunny, though he looked pretty similar. V. supra on importance.

> >> I don't think the younger generation is even all that aware of Bugs.
> >> Based on the cartoons that my grandsons watched, Looney Tunes was far
> >> down on the list if even on the list.
> >
> >Shocking. What good are cultural references?
> They are to be treasured by those of us who were of age when they were
> part of our culture. Mention of them is, at best, tolerated (perhaps
> with an eye-roll) by the later generations.
> >
> >Yesterday I assigned a problem in the physics textbook that notes that
> >you can't stand next to large amounts of molten lava because the thermal
> >radiation would kill you. I remarked that the knowledge would be useful
> >if any of the students ever had to destroy a ring. Now I'm wondering
> >whether the "new" movies of /The Lord of the Rings/ are ancient history to
> >my students.
> >
> >(I don't know whether you'd have gotten that one, but you're unlikely to
> >take my class.)

> No, not because I have not taken your class, but because I have never
> seen any of the Lord of the Rings series. Something to do with
> fantasy and Tolkein, I know, but neither fantasy of this sort nor
> Tolkein has any interest to me.

That's what I meant. I knew you weren't interested in Tolkien (so spelled),
though I didn't know whether you had somehow picked up the method of
destroying the One Ring.

> Saying that I have no interest in Tolkein might be shocking to some
> here, but my reading/watching interests are not the same as many in
> this group. I don't consider that to be a "bad thing".

I doubt anyone here is shocked or considers it a bad thing.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Ken Blake]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:43:46 -0500, CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/16/2022 9:53 AM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> Dingbat:
>
>>> Good thinging:-)
>
>> "To thing" is actually an English verb loaned from Danish. It means
>> "discuss" in relation to politics. "Tinget" was in previous centuries
>> a get-together of villagers (men) to sit and discuss matters of
>> importance
>
>But "thing" in "another thing coming" is a noun, used humorously or in
>error for the non-standard noun "a think". I don't know of an English
>verb "to thing".

I didn't either, but I just found this:

https://grammartop.com/thing-past-tense/

Is it a joke?

[Ken Blake]

Perhaps they'll be gone tomorrow.

[Ken Blake]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 15:21:26 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>On 2022-11-17 14:15:49 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2022 23:59:50 -0600, lar3ryca <la...@invalid.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-11-16 16:03, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 2:02:54 AM UTC-8, occam wrote:
>>>>> On 16/11/2022 10:58, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>>> On 16/11/22 20:47, occam wrote:
>>>>>>> Think or thing? That is the question that popped to my mind when I heard
>>>>>>> it clearly enunciated as: "They have another think coming"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apparently both are in use. This is what Meriam-Webster says:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Those who use think think those who use thing have another think coming

>>>>>>> if they think they're right in using thing?and vice versa. "

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> source:
>>>>>>> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-another-think-coming-or-another-thing-coming>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there a consensus in AUE?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Think.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That made sense the moment I heard it said. I have to admit that I was a
>>>>> 'thing' user until then. I am thinking of changing camp.
>>>>
>>>> Don't change, at least not that way. M-W is correct in saying it's used
>>>> both ways,
>>>> Most people, I suspect, hear it the way they use it. But since both ways mean
>>>> the same thing, you don't have to worry about it except when it's in print, and
>>>> even then, since they have the same meaning, you don't need to worry about it.
>>>
>>> Thing and think do not have the same meaning. I grant that the phrase
>>> means the same, but only 'thing' makes sense.
>>>
>>> We did this to death several times in the last 25 or 30 years.
>>> Are we going to do 'cut and dry' vs. 'cut and dried' too?
>>
>> Just this morning I read about a "hare-brained decision". It's
>> possible, if I read enough other reports about that decision, someone
>> would write that it's a "hair-brained decision".
>>
>> Particularly if the reports are written by Americans because there are
>> Americans who have never heard of a "hare".
>
>Jackrabbit, innit?

A jackrabbit is a hare, but not all hares are jackrabbits.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:18:00 -0700, Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com>
wrote:

If one dies, is it hare today but gone tomorrow?

[Peter Moylan]

More likely a mistake than a joke. That page has the look of something
produced from a template, from which many thousands of similar pages
would have been created. It would be easy to accidentally create
erroneous entries.

[Peter Moylan]

On 18/11/22 02:57, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 7:47:17 AM UTC-7, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 06:37:17 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman

>>> On the other hand all (for quite large values of "all") Americans know that
>>> hares are something like rabbits, because of Bugs Bunny.
>
>> I doubt if "all" or "large values of all", make that connection. Bugs
>> is that "silly wabbit".
>
> But there were "hare" puns on the show.

"I've just washed my thing, and I can't do a hare with it."

[Peter Moylan]

Probably the majority of non-Americans also don't know that jackrabbits
are hares. I had never been sure what a jackrabbit is.

[Jerry Friedman]

This page has a nice side-by-side photo and mentions some differences.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Sam Plusnet]

It's what you do to your VW, in order to change a tyre.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Sam Plusnet]

Hence no hare apparent?

--
Sam Plusnet

[Quinn C]

And what difference is that supposed to make? I'm not familiar with any
usage of "think" as a noun outside this phrase.

Others quoted usages like "I'll have a think about that." While the
meaning is clear enough, I couldn't say if it's idiomatic. This is
mainly British, according to Wiktionary.

Also, no noun usage was frequent enough to have made it into Collins
Cobuild, which lists 17 verb meanings of "think".

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

[lar3ryca]

On 2022-11-17 01:01, Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 17/11/22 16:59, lar3ryca wrote:
>> On 2022-11-16 16:03, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 2:02:54 AM UTC-8, occam wrote:
>>>> On 16/11/2022 10:58, Peter Moylan wrote:

>>>>> On 16/11/22 20:47, occam wrote:
>>>>>> Think or thing? That is the question that popped to my mind
>>>>>> when I heard it clearly enunciated as: "They have another
>>>>>> think coming"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently both are in use. This is what Meriam-Webster
>>>>>> says:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Those who use think think those who use thing have another
>>>>>> think coming if they think they're right in using thing—and
>>>>>> vice versa. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> source:
>>>>>> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-another-think-coming-or-another-thing-coming>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there a consensus in AUE?
>>>>>

>>>>> Think.
>>>>>
>>>> That made sense the moment I heard it said. I have to admit that
>>>> I was a 'thing' user until then. I am thinking of changing camp.
>>>
>>> Don't change, at least not that way. M-W is correct in saying it's
>>>  used both ways, Most people, I suspect, hear it the way they use
>>> it. But since both ways mean the same thing, you don't have to
>>> worry about it except when it's in print, and even then, since they
>>> have the same meaning, you don't need to worry about it.
>>
>> Thing and think do not have the same meaning. I grant that the phrase
>>  means the same, but only 'thing' makes sense.

Damn! I cold have sworn I typed "only think makes sense."

> I'll have to have a think about that. Isn't it true that the other thing
> you have coming is a think? What other kind of thing would qualify?
>
> "If that's what you think, you have another thing coming. See, here it
> comes now. A four by two upside the head."


--
I sneezed a sneeze into the air.
It fell to earth, I know not where,
But hard and cold were the looks of those.
In whose vicinity I snoze.

[lar3ryca]

On 2022-11-17 02:47, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

> Den 17.11.2022 kl. 06.59 skrev lar3ryca:
>
>>> Don't change, at least not that way. M-W is correct in saying it's
>>> used both ways,
>>> Most people, I suspect, hear it the way they use it. But since both
>>> ways mean
>>> the same thing, you don't have to worry about it except when it's in
>>> print, and
>>> even then, since they have the same meaning, you don't need to worry
>>> about it.
>
>> Thing and think do not have the same meaning. I grant that the phrase
>> means the same, but only 'thing' makes sense.
>

> I agree that the meaning is the same, but I don't agree that "thing" is
> meaningless. You say so yourself: "I grant that the phrase means the same".

Ignoring for the moment that I meant to type "think", I do say that the
phrase carries the same meaning, but not because they are synonymous,
but rather that the listener erroneously ascribes the same meaning to it.

--
____
√ -1 2³ Σ Π
It was delicious.

[lar3ryca]

I saw a license plat that read "ML8 ML8".
Q: What was the model and colour of the car it was on?













A: A white Rabbit

--
I have a joke about UDP, but you might not get it.

[occam]

On 18/11/2022 02:10, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 18/11/22 07:12, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:43:46 -0500, CDB <belle...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/16/2022 9:53 AM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>>> Dingbat:
>>>
>>>>> Good thinging:-)
>>>
>>>> "To thing" is actually an English verb loaned from Danish. It
>>>> means "discuss" in relation to politics. "Tinget" was in previous
>>>> centuries a get-together of villagers (men) to sit and discuss
>>>> matters of importance
>>>
>>> But "thing" in "another thing coming" is a noun, used humorously or
>>> in error for the non-standard noun "a think".  I don't know of an
>>> English verb "to thing".
>>
>>
>> I didn't either, but I just found this:
>>
>> https://grammartop.com/thing-past-tense/
>>
>> Is it a joke?
>
> More likely a mistake than a joke.

A joke. Look at the date of that page. '1 April, 2021'.

[Peter Moylan]

On 18/11/22 17:46, lar3ryca wrote:
>
> I saw a license plat that read "ML8 ML8".
> Q: What was the model and colour of the car it was on?

My favourite was a Honda with the plate "FENRY".

[Peter Moylan]

On 16/11/22 20:47, occam wrote:
> Think or thing? That is the question that popped to my mind when I
> heard it clearly enunciated as: "They have another think coming"
>
> Apparently both are in use. This is what Meriam-Webster says:
>
> "Those who use think think those who use thing have another think
> coming if they think they're right in using thing—and vice versa. "
>
> source:
> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-another-think-coming-or-another-thing-coming>
>
> Is there a consensus in AUE?
>
>

> --- P.S. Google Ngram perspective:
>
> https://tinyurl.com/5n8vpnxm

When you add the word "another" to both search terms, a different
picture arises:

<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=another+think+coming%2Canother+thing+coming&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3>

Notice how the occurrence of "another thing coming" was negligible until
about 1980.

With the "another" omitted, the results could be skewed by sentences
like "I saw a thing coming out of the water".

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 18.11.2022 kl. 11.44 skrev Peter Moylan:

>> --- P.S. Google Ngram perspective:
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/5n8vpnxm
>
> When you add the word "another" to both search terms, a different
> picture arises:

Yes, but if you also add "have" "before another", the difference
disappears in 2019. With "had" instead, "think" is more common.

--
Bertel

[occam]

On 18/11/2022 11:44, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 16/11/22 20:47, occam wrote:
>> Think or thing? That is the question that popped to my mind when I
>> heard it clearly enunciated as: "They have another think coming"
>>
>> Apparently both are in use. This is what Meriam-Webster says:
>>
>> "Those who use think think those who use thing have another think
>> coming if they think they're right in using thing—and vice versa. "
>>
>> source:
>> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-another-think-coming-or-another-thing-coming>
>>
>>  Is there a consensus in AUE?
>>
>>
>> --- P.S. Google Ngram perspective:
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/5n8vpnxm
>
> When you add the word "another" to both search terms, a different
> picture arises:
>
> <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=another+think+coming%2Canother+thing+coming&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3>
>
> Notice how the occurrence of "another thing coming" was negligible until
> about 1980.

Allow me to subvert you logic by using a new trick I recently learnt
from Jerry Friedman. When you compare the general trends of the two
expressions, it appears that "another think coming" is becoming extinct.

<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=another+think+coming%2Fanother+thing+coming&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3>

Just as I was beginning to think that I should jump camps.

[CDB]

On 11/17/2022 3:12 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

> CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>> Dingbat:

>>>> Good thinging:-)

>>> "To thing" is actually an English verb loaned from Danish. It
>>> means "discuss" in relation to politics. "Tinget" was in
>>> previous centuries a get-together of villagers (men) to sit and
>>> discuss matters of importance

>> But "thing" in "another thing coming" is a noun, used humorously
>> or in error for the non-standard noun "a think". I don't know of
>> an English verb "to thing".

> I didn't either, but I just found this:

> https://grammartop.com/thing-past-tense/

> Is it a joke?

Intentional or unintentional. The product of Artificial Unintelligence.

[CDB]

On 11/17/2022 9:49 PM, Quinn C wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels:
>> Quinn C wrote:
>>> Peter T. Daniels:

>>>> occam wrote:

>>>>> Think or thing? That is the question that popped to my mind
>>>>> when I heard it clearly enunciated as: "They have another
>>>>> think coming" Apparently both are in use. This is what
>>>>> Meriam-Webster says: "Those who use think think those who use
>>>>> thing have another think coming if they think they're right
>>>>> in using thing—and vice versa. " source:
>>>>> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-another-think-coming-or-another-thing-coming>
>>>>>
>>>>>
Is there a consensus in AUE?
>>>>> --- P.S. Google Ngram perspective:
>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/5n8vpnxm
>>>> Never heard it with "thing." (What would it mean?)

>>> I don't understand what "have a think coming" means, either, but
>>> I'm not

>> Nothing.
>>
>> It's _another_ think.

>>> a native speaker, so I just let it go, and learned how the whole
>>> phrase is used.

> And what difference is that supposed to make? I'm not familiar with
> any usage of "think" as a noun outside this phrase.

The act of thinking, as distinct from what thinking produces.

[Quinn C]

* Bertel Lund Hansen:

> Den 17.11.2022 kl. 15.15 skrev Tony Cooper:
>
>> Just this morning I read about a "hare-brained decision". It's
>> possible, if I read enough other reports about that decision, someone
>> would write that it's a "hair-brained decision".
>

> In Danish we have the word "hårdknude" which means "hard-knot". It's
> used when a problem has become unsolvable. Some Danes write and say
> "hårknude" which means "hair-knot". "Hård" and "hår" are pronounced the
> exact same way.

So you can't know which one they say, only write.

--
Veronica: You named your puppy "The Missus"?
Cliff: Says the owner of a dog named "Pony".
-- Veronica Mars, S04E05

[Quinn C]

* Jerry Friedman:

> On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 7:47:17 AM UTC-7, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 06:37:17 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman

>> <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 7:21:34 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> On 2022-11-17 14:15:49 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
>>>...
>>>

>>>> > Just this morning I read about a "hare-brained decision". It's
>>>> > possible, if I read enough other reports about that decision, someone
>>>> > would write that it's a "hair-brained decision".
>>>> >

>>>> > Particularly if the reports are written by Americans because there are
>>>> > Americans who have never heard of a "hare".
>>>
>>>> Jackrabbit, innit?
>>>
>>>It is. I'll bet the majority of Americans don't know jackrabbits are hares.
>>>On the other hand all (for quite large values of "all") Americans know that
>>>hares are something like rabbits, because of Bugs Bunny.
>

>> I doubt if "all" or "large values of all", make that connection. Bugs
>> is that "silly wabbit".
>
> But there were "hare" puns on the show.
>

> (And I think you may be making a mistake almost as important as the
> origin of the Clampetts. Bugs was a "wascal wabbit". The "silly rabbit"
> was in the Trix commercials.)
>

>> The hare who raced the tortise is probably more familiar than Bugs as
>> a hare.
>
> Not so sure.

>
>> I don't think the younger generation is even all that aware of Bugs.
>> Based on the cartoons that my grandsons watched, Looney Tunes was far
>> down on the list if even on the list.
>
> Shocking. What good are cultural references?

Well, "Clampetts" was no good for me. I suspected it to be a band - made
me remember the "Rubettes".

> Yesterday I assigned a problem in the physics textbook that notes that
> you can't stand next to large amounts of molten lava because the thermal
> radiation would kill you. I remarked that the knowledge would be useful
> if any of the students ever had to destroy a ring. Now I'm wondering
> whether the "new" movies of /The Lord of the Rings/ are ancient history to
> my students.

I have in fact heard from someone that they've never seen those "old"
movies. The adjective had me pause. I remember seeing the announcements
shortly before my son was born, and that was a "geriatric pregnancy"
(and me the same age as the birth mother).

--
Novels and romances ... when habitually indulged in, exert a
disastrous influence on the nervous system, sufficient to explain
that frequency of hysteria and nervous disease which we find
among the highest classes. -- E.J. Tilt

[occam]

...or a case of (intentional) natural mischievousness. (1 April joke.)

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 18.11.2022 kl. 13.18 skrev occam:

> Allow me to subvert you logic by using a new trick I recently learnt
> from Jerry Friedman. When you compare the general trends of the two
> expressions, it appears that "another think coming" is becoming extinct.

Not extinct. Just not more popular than "thing".

--
Bertel

[Ken Blake]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 09:00:54 +0100, occam <oc...@nowhere.nix> wrote:

>On 18/11/2022 02:10, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 18/11/22 07:12, Ken Blake wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 10:43:46 -0500, CDB <belle...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/16/2022 9:53 AM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>>>> Dingbat:
>>>>
>>>>>> Good thinging:-)
>>>>
>>>>> "To thing" is actually an English verb loaned from Danish. It
>>>>> means "discuss" in relation to politics. "Tinget" was in previous
>>>>> centuries a get-together of villagers (men) to sit and discuss
>>>>> matters of importance
>>>>
>>>> But "thing" in "another thing coming" is a noun, used humorously or
>>>> in error for the non-standard noun "a think".  I don't know of an
>>>> English verb "to thing".
>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't either, but I just found this:
>>>
>>> https://grammartop.com/thing-past-tense/
>>>
>>> Is it a joke?
>>
>> More likely a mistake than a joke.
>
>
>A joke. Look at the date of that page. '1 April, 2021'.

Ah! Thanks very much. I had missed that.

[Paul Wolff]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2022, at 16:23:08, Bertel Lund Hansen posted:

>Den 17.11.2022 kl. 15.15 skrev Tony Cooper:
>

>> Just this morning I read about a "hare-brained decision". It's
>> possible, if I read enough other reports about that decision, someone
>> would write that it's a "hair-brained decision".
>

>In Danish we have the word "hårdknude" which means "hard-knot". It's
>used when a problem has become unsolvable. Some Danes write and say
>"hårknude" which means "hair-knot". "Hård" and "hår" are pronounced the
>exact same way.
>

There's a hill pass road in the English Lake District with a gradient of
30% called Hardknott Pass. There were Danes around there - but Romans
before Danes. The Wikip piece attributes the name to an Old Norse
derivation where knutr means 'craggy hill'. Either way, the road
presents a hard problem at times.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardknott_Pass>
--
Paul

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 18.11.2022 kl. 18.11 skrev Paul Wolff:

> There's a hill pass road in the English Lake District with a gradient of
> 30% called Hardknott Pass. There were Danes around there - but Romans
> before Danes. The Wikip piece attributes the name to an Old Norse
> derivation where knutr means 'craggy hill'. Either way, the road
> presents a hard problem at times.

Today it's forgotten, but "knot" is also a Danish word. Apart from the
(eng.) knot sense, it also means the lump in a plank where a brach has
connected. Is that also called "a knot"?

It's now "knast" in Danish, and that word is used about any difficulty,
for example in discussions workers and employers when an agreement is to
be reached. That fits well with Hardknott being difficult to pass.

--
Bertel

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

BTDT, Smelt the brakes!

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 18:45:15 +0100, Bertel Lund Hansen
<gade...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

>Den 18.11.2022 kl. 18.11 skrev Paul Wolff:
>
>> There's a hill pass road in the English Lake District with a gradient of
>> 30% called Hardknott Pass. There were Danes around there - but Romans
>> before Danes. The Wikip piece attributes the name to an Old Norse
>> derivation where knutr means 'craggy hill'. Either way, the road
>> presents a hard problem at times.
>
>Today it's forgotten, but "knot" is also a Danish word. Apart from the
>(eng.) knot sense, it also means the lump in a plank where a brach has
>connected. Is that also called "a knot"?

What is more common (US) than the wooden "knot" (which a
carpenter might refer to) is the "knot hole" that a child or a
peeping Tom (sex pervert) peeks through.

>
>It's now "knast" in Danish, and that word is used about any difficulty,
>for example in discussions workers and employers when an agreement is to
>be reached. That fits well with Hardknott being difficult to pass.

--

Rich Ulrich

[Rich Ulrich]

Change the Years to 1980 on to improve the scale for recent years,
the evident ratio drops from 600% to 120% -- "think" remains ahead.

Also.
Select by corpus (2019) and the BrE ratio is always above 300%,
whereas the recent AmE ratio drops to under 110% (still over 100%).

--
Rich Ulrich

[Sam Plusnet]

One pill makes you larger
And one pill makes you small
While the ones your mother gave you
Don't do anything
At all.
Go ask Alice...


--
Sam Plusnet

[Sam Plusnet]

In BrE, the more common version is "you've got another think coming".
Your search would exclude all of those.

--
Sam Plusnet

[lar3ryca]

Did they get al liquidy?

--
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit.
Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.

[lar3ryca]

'all' liquidy.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

Not quite! Knorr did they smell fishy.

[Ken Blake]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 18:45:15 +0100, Bertel Lund Hansen
<gade...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

>Den 18.11.2022 kl. 18.11 skrev Paul Wolff:
>
>> There's a hill pass road in the English Lake District with a gradient of
>> 30% called Hardknott Pass. There were Danes around there - but Romans
>> before Danes. The Wikip piece attributes the name to an Old Norse
>> derivation where knutr means 'craggy hill'. Either way, the road
>> presents a hard problem at times.
>
>Today it's forgotten, but "knot" is also a Danish word. Apart from the
>(eng.) knot sense, it also means the lump in a plank where a brach has
>connected. Is that also called "a knot"?

Yes.

[Paul Wolff]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2022, at 16:05:51, Ken Blake posted:

That sort of knot also has the property of tying or binding the wood
together. I have a stack of ash logs in my garden which I'm splitting
with an axe ready for firewood through the coming winter. Where the
grain is straight, splitting is easy, but where there was a branch in
the tree the grain twists and can't be forced apart. That's what the
knot does.
--
Paul

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 18.11.2022 kl. 19.53 skrev Rich Ulrich:

> What is more common (US) than the wooden "knot" (which a
> carpenter might refer to) is the "knot hole" that a child or a
> peeping Tom (sex pervert) peeks through.

So a knot hole may appear in a plank that is not whole?

--
Bertel

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 18.11.2022 kl. 21.35 skrev Sam Plusnet:

> In BrE, the more common version is "you've got another think coming".
> Your search would exclude all of those.

That phrase with "thing" or "think" has zero hits in Ngram. If I cut
away "you've" and choose British English, then "think" clearly wins.

--
Bertel

[Mark Brader]

Bertel Lund Hansen:

>> Today it's forgotten, but "knot" is also a Danish word. Apart from the
>> (eng.) knot sense, it also means the lump in a plank where a brach has
>> connected. Is that also called "a knot"?

Rich Ulrich:

> What is more common (US) than the wooden "knot" (which a
> carpenter might refer to) is the "knot hole" that a child or a
> peeping Tom (sex pervert) peeks through.

I don't think I agree with "more common". I'm sure I've encountered
rooms paneled with knotty pine wood more often than I've encountered
knotholes.
--
Mark Brader | "Grammar am for people who can't think for *myself*.
Toronto | Understanded me?"
m...@vex.net | -- Buck (Get Fuzzy: Darby Conley)

[Janet]

In article <tla22n$36ed5$2...@dont-email.me>,
gade...@lundhansen.dk says...

You're not wholly wrong.

Janet

[CDB]

On 11/18/2022 9:06 AM, occam wrote:

OK. I had that filed under "intentional joke". It seems possible that
a bot came up with it and a joker used it for the occasion.

[Ken Blake]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 09:23:27 +0000, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

>Bertel Lund Hansen:
>>> Today it's forgotten, but "knot" is also a Danish word. Apart from the
>>> (eng.) knot sense, it also means the lump in a plank where a brach has
>>> connected. Is that also called "a knot"?
>
>Rich Ulrich:
>> What is more common (US) than the wooden "knot" (which a
>> carpenter might refer to) is the "knot hole" that a child or a
>> peeping Tom (sex pervert) peeks through.
>
>I don't think I agree with "more common". I'm sure I've encountered
>rooms paneled with knotty pine wood more often than I've encountered
>knotholes.

Me too. I was just about to post the same thing.

[Ken Blake]

As far as I'm concerned, it does not.

[Adam Funk]

On 2022-11-19, Mark Brader wrote:

> Bertel Lund Hansen:
>>> Today it's forgotten, but "knot" is also a Danish word. Apart from the
>>> (eng.) knot sense, it also means the lump in a plank where a brach has
>>> connected. Is that also called "a knot"?
>
> Rich Ulrich:
>> What is more common (US) than the wooden "knot" (which a
>> carpenter might refer to) is the "knot hole" that a child or a
>> peeping Tom (sex pervert) peeks through.
>
> I don't think I agree with "more common". I'm sure I've encountered
> rooms paneled with knotty pine wood more often than I've encountered
> knotholes.

Maybe awareness of the terms has to do with how much woodworking
you've done or seen?

My father used to make woodcuts; we would go to the local hardware &
timber store whenever a new delivery came in, to pick through the
shelving boards looking for good ones. They all had knots somewhere,
but he would consider the layout of various sizes of woodcuts he could
get out of a piece, then cut it up [1] to take home.

[1] Using self-service radial arm & table saws, which no store would
let customers use these days.


--
So you think I got an evil mind
Well I'll tell you honey
And I don't know why
And I don't know why

[Adam Funk]

I've been quite surprised by this thread. I've only ever been aware of
"you've got another thing coming", exactly like the title of the Judas
Priest song.


--
Unix is a user-friendly operating system. It's just very choosy about
its friends.

[Adam Funk]

holey moley


--
Now you're climbing to the top of the company ladder
Hope it doesn't take too long
Can't you see there'll come a day when it won't matter?
Come a day when you'll be gone ---Boston

[Sam Plusnet]

On 19-Nov-22 14:47, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2022-11-19, Janet wrote:
>
>> In article <tla22n$36ed5$2...@dont-email.me>,
>> gade...@lundhansen.dk says...
>>>
>>> Den 18.11.2022 kl. 19.53 skrev Rich Ulrich:
>>>
>>>> What is more common (US) than the wooden "knot" (which a
>>>> carpenter might refer to) is the "knot hole" that a child or a
>>>> peeping Tom (sex pervert) peeks through.
>>>
>>> So a knot hole may appear in a plank that is not whole?
>>
>> You're not wholly wrong.
>
> holey moley

Bertel's question is a tricky one. I'd call it a knotty problem.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Rich Ulrich]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 09:23:27 +0000, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

>Bertel Lund Hansen:
>>> Today it's forgotten, but "knot" is also a Danish word. Apart from the
>>> (eng.) knot sense, it also means the lump in a plank where a brach has
>>> connected. Is that also called "a knot"?
>
>Rich Ulrich:
>> What is more common (US) than the wooden "knot" (which a
>> carpenter might refer to) is the "knot hole" that a child or a
>> peeping Tom (sex pervert) peeks through.
>
>I don't think I agree with "more common". I'm sure I've encountered
>rooms paneled with knotty pine wood more often than I've encountered
>knotholes.

Okay. I think of "knotty pine" without thinking much of individual
knots. Knotty pine is well-known. When I wrote that, I was focussing
on the one word, and "knotty" did not occur to me.

--
Rich Ulrich

[lar3ryca]

This is a good plank. Of knot holes, it has naught, not?

--
Someone told me to act my age, but I don't know how to do that.
I've never been this old before.

[lar3ryca]

On 2022-11-19 03:23, Mark Brader wrote:
> Bertel Lund Hansen:
>>> Today it's forgotten, but "knot" is also a Danish word. Apart from the
>>> (eng.) knot sense, it also means the lump in a plank where a brach has
>>> connected. Is that also called "a knot"?
>
> Rich Ulrich:
>> What is more common (US) than the wooden "knot" (which a
>> carpenter might refer to) is the "knot hole" that a child or a
>> peeping Tom (sex pervert) peeks through.
>
> I don't think I agree with "more common". I'm sure I've encountered
> rooms paneled with knotty pine wood more often than I've encountered
> knotholes.

But the knotty pine used generally does not have knotholes. A knot does
not, of necessity, have holes.

--
I am root.
If you see me laughing, you better have a backup.

[Mark Brader]

Rich Ulrich:
>>> What is more common (US) than the wooden "knot" (which a
>>> carpenter might refer to) is the "knot hole" that a child or a
>>> peeping Tom (sex pervert) peeks through.

Mark Brader:

>> I don't think I agree with "more common". I'm sure I've encountered
>> rooms paneled with knotty pine wood more often than I've encountered
>> knotholes.

"Larry":

> But the knotty pine used generally does not have knotholes. A knot does
> not, of necessity, have holes.

Exactly -- so why did you say "but"?
--
Mark Brader | "Reality aside, we would like to deploy a methodology
m...@vex.net | for how Rooter might behave in theory."
Toronto | -- scigen.pl (Stribling, Krohn, and Aguayo)

[Sam Plusnet]

Problems arise when the knot and the knothole have a falling out.

--
Sam Plusnet

[lar3ryca]

On 2022-11-19 15:49, Mark Brader wrote:
> Rich Ulrich:
>>>> What is more common (US) than the wooden "knot" (which a
>>>> carpenter might refer to) is the "knot hole" that a child or a
>>>> peeping Tom (sex pervert) peeks through.
>
> Mark Brader:
>>> I don't think I agree with "more common". I'm sure I've encountered
>>> rooms paneled with knotty pine wood more often than I've encountered
>>> knotholes.
>
> "Larry":
>> But the knotty pine used generally does not have knotholes. A knot does
>> not, of necessity, have holes.
>
> Exactly -- so why did you say "but"?

It was short for "however, were were talking about knotholes"

It was not an attempt to correct you. It was only to clarify something
for anyone not familiar with knotty pine.

--
At first I was confused about why they wanted me to carry a geiger
counter, but then it clicked.

[Adam Funk]

On 2022-11-17, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 7:47:17 AM UTC-7, Tony Cooper wrote:

>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 06:37:17 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
>> <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 7:21:34 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> >> On 2022-11-17 14:15:49 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
>> >...
>> >

>> >> > Just this morning I read about a "hare-brained decision". It's
>> >> > possible, if I read enough other reports about that decision, someone
>> >> > would write that it's a "hair-brained decision".
>> >> >

>> >> > Particularly if the reports are written by Americans because there are
>> >> > Americans who have never heard of a "hare".
>> >
>> >> Jackrabbit, innit?
>> >
>> >It is. I'll bet the majority of Americans don't know jackrabbits are hares.
>> >On the other hand all (for quite large values of "all") Americans know that
>> >hares are something like rabbits, because of Bugs Bunny.
>

>> I doubt if "all" or "large values of all", make that connection. Bugs
>> is that "silly wabbit".
>
> But there were "hare" puns on the show.
>
> (And I think you may be making a mistake almost as important as the
> origin of the Clampetts. Bugs was a "wascal wabbit". The "silly rabbit"
> was in the Trix commercials.)
>
>> The hare who raced the tortise is probably more familiar than Bugs as
>> a hare.
>
> Not so sure.
>
>> I don't think the younger generation is even all that aware of Bugs.
>> Based on the cartoons that my grandsons watched, Looney Tunes was far
>> down on the list if even on the list.
>
> Shocking. What good are cultural references?
>
> Yesterday I assigned a problem in the physics textbook that notes that
> you can't stand next to large amounts of molten lava because the thermal
> radiation would kill you. I remarked that the knowledge would be useful
> if any of the students ever had to destroy a ring. Now I'm wondering
> whether the "new" movies of /The Lord of the Rings/ are ancient history to
> my students.
>
> (I don't know whether you'd have gotten that one, but you're unlikely to
> take my class.)

That's only necessary for evil magic rings. Normal ones you can just
beat down with dwarven tools.


--
Outside of the city limits the heart of darkness, the true wasteland
begins. --Ignatius J Reilly

[Snidely]

On Wednesday, lar3ryca yelped out that:
> On 2022-11-16 16:03, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 2:02:54 AM UTC-8, occam wrote:
>>> On 16/11/2022 10:58, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>> On 16/11/22 20:47, occam wrote:
>>>>> Think or thing? That is the question that popped to my mind when I heard
>>>>> it clearly enunciated as: "They have another think coming"
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently both are in use. This is what Meriam-Webster says:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Those who use think think those who use thing have another think coming
>>>>> if they think they're right in using thing—and vice versa. "
>>>>>
>>>>> source:
>>>>> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-another-think-coming-or-another-thing-coming>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a consensus in AUE?
>>>>
>>>> Think.
>>>>
>>> That made sense the moment I heard it said. I have to admit that I was a
>>> 'thing' user until then. I am thinking of changing camp.
>>
>> Don't change, at least not that way. M-W is correct in saying it's used
>> both ways,
>> Most people, I suspect, hear it the way they use it. But since both ways
>> mean
>> the same thing, you don't have to worry about it except when it's in print,
>> and
>> even then, since they have the same meaning, you don't need to worry about
>> it.
>
> Thing and think do not have the same meaning. I grant that the phrase means
> the same, but only 'thing' makes sense.

Only if you insist that a noun is something you can touch. "Think" as
a noun is synechode or something for the process of thinking (and can
you touch a process?), and vast numbers of people who understand the
phrase also understand this.

> We did this to death several times in the last 25 or 30 years.
> Are we going to do 'cut and dry' vs. 'cut and dried' too?
>
>> I used to be a "thing" person and have gradually changed to "think" over
>> the years,
>> but I also recognize that it doesn't matter, since both the "thing" people
>> and the
>> "think" people will understand exactly what you mean.


But the jots and tittles have to have EXACTLY the right curvature!

/dps

--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain