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

hells - a thing-er who has read the thread and changed her mind - wow, you will be a like drops of cooling rain on some of the fevered brows on this thread!

Well every day is a school day on MN.
I always thought it was thing.
Now I know I shall use it correctly.

Yes, MaidOfStars, that sounds plausible. Apparently, a popular eggcorn for "rote learning" is "route learning".

Dum That might be a jumbling of 'learning the ropes' and 'learning by rote'?

I am reminded that some time ago, I contributed "learning by rope" and "rope learning" to the Eggcorns forum, though I see it never made it to their database. (Apparently widely used in Australia and South Africa to mean "learning by rote" and "rote learning".) If you think it's rope learning, not rote learning, you've got another think coming .

catmilkman - I assume you are just having a bit of fun (writing "free" rather than "three"), but to quote this page again Language Log, the first example of "think" is from 1901, the first example of "thing" is from 1919, so according to you for 18 years, everyone was apparently doing it wrong until someone discovered the right way! (And OED says "thing" is a "misapprehension").

BertieBotts - I hadn't seen that particular construction ("If I had of...") but I think you must be right! Tenses in English are very peculiar.

It's not the difference between "may" and "could", surely, but the difference between "can" and "may"? Where "can" is wrong.

OH. Hackmum, that has just explained something to me.

I keep seeing people write "If I had of...." and being totally confused, wondering what on earth they've mistaken for that.

It must be "If I would have..." - shortened to "If I'd've". The Brit in them knows that somewhere in there should be "If I had" so interprets the "I'd" as I had, not I would, and then they do the old mishearing of 've as of. Therefore, if I would have becomes if I had of.

In British English we tend to use the past simple either for telling a sequential story (I saw him, I said hello and we chatted for a while and then...) or to ask a question about something which we already knew was on the case. So I'd never ask you "Did you see the new James Bond film?" if I had no idea whether you were a Bond fan. But if we'd spoken the week before and you'd expressed to me how interested you were in it, THEN I might ask in that way. Otherwise, we'd normally say "Have you seen the new Bond film?"

I have to disagree about may I have, though. It sounds old fashioned to my ears. Could I have is polite enough. Especially if you include please. I agree get is incorrect in BE.

'Announce' means 'pronounce', yes?

Of course they are, catmilkman

Hahaha

Back again this time free pages later and people that think it's thing are still right.
I think the people saying think are just trolling like the people that announce gif jif. They know what they are doing, it's just a joke on the people doing it right.

My ds is currently spending a year at University in the US. God knows how he'll come back speaking.

clam, DS2 is 22 & half his phrasing is American these days - I blame the Simpsons, Friends etc

I keep trying to correct him but it's hopeless

(& I'm another who loathes 'for free'. I don't sin myself but I can't see a way to eliminate the sin )

Let's not start on the extremely irritating Americanism that is creeping its tentacles among us, which is "Can I get...."

IT'S MAY I HAVE YOU IMBECILES.

It is very, very obviously 'think'! What was the first 'thing' you had coming?

I actually didn't know anyone thought otherwise - interesting! Hully is spot on throughout.

Well, remember, when this thread is gone, there is always Pedants' Corner which provides plenty of sympathy for those who want to rage - if that kind of therapy would help...

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/pedants_corner

Bertie: Yes, I've noticed that. "Did you see the new James Bond film yet?" sounds odd to our ears. The one that always sounds really strange to me is the use of the conditional rather than the pluperfect. So whereas we might say, "If I had stayed at home that night, none of this would have happened," Americans would say, "If I would have stayed at home that night..."

maizieD: "But it is not a noun in this particular context. The noun should be 'thought'."

Not at all. The noun should be "think". That's why I gave as an example: "You need to have a think".

"Think" carries a slightly different meaning from "thought". If the saying was "If you think that, you've got another thought coming", it wouldn't work very well. A "thought" is a one-off thing; a "think" takes time. It involves a process of reflection.

An interesting thing I have learned from Americans I know is that their grammar rules sometimes contradict ours. For example Brits usually say "I've got a new car" whereas Americans are taught in school that "I have got" is terrible English and wrong. It's because we tend to use the present perfect (I've been to the doctor, I've already eaten, I've thought about what you said) whereas they use the past simple (I went to the doctor, I ate already, I thought about what you said) and we extend this to "I've got three brothers" for acquiring something or stating ownership whereas they would say the more direct "I bought a new car" or "I have three brothers"

To me in most cases using the past simple sounds wrong, especially with "already". "Did you eat already?" sounds awful to a British ear. But "Have you got your coat?" sounds awful to an American ear!

Weird thing, language.

I am very well aware that people say "I'll have a think about xyz" and I strongly suspect that even this isn't really 'correct' as what it actually means is "I'll think about xyz".

It is correct. 'Think' is also a noun. The dictionary says so.

@hackmum

But it is not a noun in this particular context. The noun should be 'thought'.

I am very well aware that people say "I'll have a think about xyz" and I strongly suspect that even this isn't really 'correct' as what it actually means is "I'll think about xyz".

But this doesn't alter the fact that 'thing' is just wrong...

@ LatinForTelly

I think the real problem is that 'for free' trips off the tongue so easily and is satisfyingly alliterative.

It's still nonsense, though

Ooh kindred spirits, maizieD and MaidOfStars regarding 'for free'. I've given up now. tbh. I think David Dimbleby or someone equally erudite used it and I thought, the battle's lost.