Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Pedants' corner

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

My friend uses the wrong words...

411 replies

nickytwotimes · 12/02/2008 13:23

My very good, kind and lovely friend uses the word "pacific" rather than the correct term "specific". My fellow pedants, what do I do? I have turned a blind eye (or deaf ear) to it thus far, but it drives me crazy. Another lovely friend responded to my ds saying "How do you do?" (he is 18 mths - very cute!) by saying "Very well thank you and how are you?"!

Am I going straight to hell for being so judgemental?

OP posts:
UnquietDad · 15/02/2008 12:38

If it were beyond all doubt then nobody would say "thing". And many people do. Therefore there is ongoing doubt. QED.

IorekByrnison · 15/02/2008 12:42

Nobody is questioning that "thing" is common usage.

There is however near universal agreement that "thing" is a corruption of the original "think".

UnquietDad · 15/02/2008 12:44

I'm not really bothered about usage - as I've said above I don't always accept it for other phrases (e.g, "anymore"). I've just always said that "thing" makes more sense, and to me it does. I don't say it because it's a corruption which I've heard other people saying - I say it because it is more logical.

ahundredtimes · 15/02/2008 12:45

It is quite male I think, I know it's unfair but it is a common trait this 'Sorry, I can't say I was wrong, I just can't and perhaps I'm not wrong you see, so I can't say I was wrong, because I won't, so there.'

I am generalizing, of course.

Highest order? Oh yes, I see. But people do say 'of the first order' don't they - and it was originally 'of the first water.'

It's like think and thing, people mishear the word and the phrase changes.

IorekByrnison · 15/02/2008 12:53

I give up. Impossible to defeat such faith with mere reason.

UnquietDad · 15/02/2008 12:54

Not faith. As if. Logic.

ahundredtimes · 15/02/2008 12:57

LOL.

IorekByrnison · 15/02/2008 12:59

Take us through that logic again.

UnquietDad · 15/02/2008 13:01

Oh, I'm not going to go over and over it again. People must be sick of it. You reach the point where you are just repeating yourself!

ahundredtimes · 15/02/2008 13:05

I wonder why that happens UQD.

I wonder why however many times you explain your theory, people still don't seem to understand or agree with you. It must be very frustrating. Especially when said people keep waving copies of the OED under your nose instead of listening properly.

IorekByrnison · 15/02/2008 13:05

You said that before. But you didn't really explain your grounds for believing your knowledge to be superior to that of the OED.

Threadworm · 15/02/2008 13:13

If it were indeed 'thing' not 'think', then the natural construction would be:

'Bob thinks he is going to marry the princess but he has got another thing coming.'

-- i.e all that's be necessary would be a contrast, supplied by 'but', rather than the conditional formula supplied by 'if'.

Because, the second, revised 'think' is conditional on there having been an earlier wrongful thought. The 'another thing' is not likewise conditional.

legalalien · 15/02/2008 13:15

Yes, as in "he is a snake of the first water". I have always thought that the reference had something to do with biblical floods (no idea why). Clearly it didn't, and I'm going to have to retrain myself to use "water" instead of "order".

StealthPolarBear · 15/02/2008 13:20

I'm in the 'think' camp but am starting to feel very sorry for poor old UQD! I might even defect (if you'll have me?)

IorekByrnison · 15/02/2008 13:23

Yes, polarbear. My last post was rather rude. I am a little embarrassed and quite repentant.

V well put though, threadworm.

UnquietDad · 15/02/2008 14:06

Well, there is a difference between not agreeing and not understanding. People often mistake the latter for the former.

threadworm - is there any reason why it can't be constructed like that? I'm sure I've sen it done like that anyway.

The conditional can be used without a repetition of the verb. "If you think I'm doing that, you're wrong", or "If he expects me to wash the car he can take a running jump."

UnquietDad · 15/02/2008 14:12

seen.

LittleWonder · 15/02/2008 14:27

UQD has started a "sour grapes" thread...

UnquietDad · 15/02/2008 14:36

I've actually been meaning to start that one for ages.

IorekByrnison · 15/02/2008 14:40

UQD the difference between your example "If you think I'm doing that, you're wrong", and "If you think I'm doing that, you've got another thing coming" is that to use "another thing" within the conditional formula (as so eloquently described by threadworm) implies the presence of a previous "thing" in the first half of the if formula.

Anyway, I will leave you to your sour grapes.

LittleWonder · 15/02/2008 14:44
Grin
UnquietDad · 15/02/2008 14:45

Iorek - I actually don't disagree there. You see, the way I read it there is the presence of a previous "thing" in the first half of the "if" formula. An implied one. The first is that you think A is going to happen. The second is that, in fact, B is going to happen.

ahundredtimes · 15/02/2008 15:01

It might not make good sense and may be clumsy and it might not even be logical

however the original expression reamains 'if you think that, then you have another think coming.'

And that is that. Surely?

IorekByrnison · 15/02/2008 15:10

But the phrase is contructed in such a way that what happens in the second half (ie another thing/think coming) is conditional on the first half (ie thinking xyz).

If you say "another thing", the "thing" is coming whether the person addressed thinks xyz or not. It is not conditional. Therefore the formula does not work and the correct formula should be, as threadworm has demonstrated "you think xyz, but you've got another thing coming".

Another think, on the other hand, is conditional on the thinking of the person addressed, ie if you think that, you will have to think again.

IorekByrnison · 15/02/2008 15:11

ahundredtimes it is clumsy but entirely logical.