Has DH got another think coming or have I got another thing coming???

Look, it's 'think'. I don't dispute that. And the reason it's right is because it's fucking right and 'thing' is wrong. That's it. There doesn't have to be another reason.

My main issue is with people saying that it makes no sense because there is no thing being referred to: this is just so clearly nonsense yet person after person has said it. I'm not arguing that this means that thing makes more sense than think here, but I AM stating that there is a thing being referred to. That's it.

JonSnow refers to cases where the thing being referred to isn't a thing. I asked for examples but I'm clearly not going to get any because it's utterly impossible to produce such a thing.

Maybe we could all just agree that people who say

"I could care less"

deserve a massive slap in the face.

At least THAT clearly makes no sense whatsoever!!!!

So, Ghoul, is someone "right for current usage" if they say "should of," as opposed to "should have?"
No, BECAUSE IT'S INCORRECT!!!

Hmm, far too clever for me. I can sort of see what you mean, but I'm looking at it in a much simpler way.

The moment you start talking you're implying things. The moment you start to talk about a potential event, it is implied.

And in any case, I'm not arguing that it's more correct, only that the people who are saying it's wrong because there is no thing being referred to are wrong. Clearly there IS a thing. Saying 'another thing' is wrong, but that's not the reason why it's wrong.

makes more sense than referencing the noun specifically mentioned.

But it's not a noun, is it? It's a verb. There's a certain logic behind the assumption that a noun ('thing') would be matched with another noun (the thing happening), rather than with a verb.

Goodness gracious me.

I've never heard anybody ever say "another think coming" and assumed that was a typo in your post.

It's another THING coming!

I always get ice/ise confused too.

Put ice (noun) in your drink when you exerc-ise (verb).

Now the one I'm grappling with is who/whom.

Bugrit What linguistic trickery?

You (earlier): It may be referred to only obliquely.

You acknowledge that "thing" (rather than "think") as the first noun to which another will be added is not specifically mentioned. You have to imply its existence in order to force your version to make sense.

And argue that the implied existence of an unmentioned noun is more correct and makes more sense than referencing the noun specifically mentioned.

Linguistic trickery.

Well I've always said thing and have never heard anyone say anything else. So I think your DH is probably right for current usage, even if you are right for origin.

Those who who think it's "thing" have got another think coming. And to think we've had compulsory education for well over 150 years. Just think about it -ENGLISH is not illogical.

I think when you invoke caps lock with such gusto when arguing against the OED an 'in my opinion' wouldn't go amiss.

In my opinion

Internet rule no. 45789

'Think' makes less sense to me because I am not familiar with the use of that word as a noun to refer to a singular thought.

It's not linguistic trickery to infer that something that could happen is a thing. It's a natural use of the English language. To me.

We're not finding it hard to understand, greenpotato. As someone pointed out earlier, sure, language evolves, but that's a different thing from trying to claim a new word/phrase exists just because a whole load of people have been getting it wrong for years.

What linguistic trickery?

You forgot 'in my opinion'.

Come on, that isn't fair. Read through the thread and you will see post after post saying the opposite without a single qualifying 'in my opinion' or 'I think.

But THING is just plain WRONG.

It hasn't evolved like that, people just aren't aware they've been using it incorrectly.

But it is INCORRECT. It is the WRONG word.

People who know the correct words will be looking at the people who are wrong.,

THING MAKES MORE SENSE

No it doesn't, as evidenced by the linguistic trickery one has to engage in in order for it to make any sense.

We are going round in circles because people find it hard to understand that usage can (in some cases) make things right.

Like in "an adder", which has been explained below.

It was once wrong, it became right. That happens. It happens because of usage. "Right" does not mean "however it started, no matter how long ago that was". A usage can split and two forms can be widely used. As in "I couldn't care less"/"I could care less" which has also been explained.

I have not rtft

I cannot believe this is even a debate.

It's "think"

"Thing" does not make sense.

How, in the name of the dear sweet weeping baby Jesus, is this possibly, possibly a debate?

Although the 'I think' seems more related to the 'it's more efficient and easy to use' rather than the 'because THING MAKES MORE SENSE'.

I was meaning to be a bit tongue-in-cheek-rant with my caps, rather than actually shouty, sorry that didn't come across.

Sorry. I didn't notice that due to the shouty use of CAPS LOCK.