My friend uses the wrong words...

[nickytwotimes]

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?

Message withdrawn

and here

and here too

But the EVIDENCE is there MotherFunk. Unless you think the OED is wrong. Of course, any fool can venture their opinion on the internet, but Eric Partridge and the OED is good enough for me.

Message withdrawn

You fink what you like MF. Not my fault if you get fings wrong.

motherfunk - yup, it has become corrupted in speech and now people are trying to "retcon" it as the correct way. Drives me nuts.

A think is what you do when you are engaging thought processes. You sit down and have a think. A think doesn't come unbidden, whereas the implication in this phrase is that what you have coming to you does, indeed, come unbidden, against your volition.

You imagined one thing would happen, i.e. something beneficial - in fact, another thing is going to happen, i.e. something less welcome. Makes perfect sense.

The litmus test is that one can use it in expressions which don't even include "think" at all, e.g.:

"If you seriously believe that, you've got another thing coming"

"If she feels that way, she'll have another thing coming"

etc.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

And, indeed the supposedly "wrong" quote in that link demonstrates my point perfectly:

"If the leaders of the Democratic Party hope that they can fool the holy people by buying themselves white leatherette-bound Bibles and pink plastic Jesuses and turning up to give testimony at church, they've got another thing coming."

You can use it in a sentence with a verb other than "think". Perfectly fine.

UQD, look at the evidence. It has NOT become corrupted in speech, it is an old expression that has been in use in the think form since at least the 1930s. It is a JOKEY expression which was never intended to be strictly grammatical. You are just plain WRONG.

I'm not getting into this again, because I know I'm right. I've looked at the "evidence" and I disagree with it. The "evidence" is not prescriptive - it's descriptive.

Message withdrawn

surely it's how d'ye do?
To which the answer is 'how d'ye doodle do too?
To which the answer is 'how d'ye doodle do too two?

Agree this one is ipso facto the barricade.

There is no evidence of the 'thing' expression being used prior to 1983. The written evidence for 'think' extends back to 1938. Why can't you just admit you are wrong?

UQD "If you seriously believe that, you've got another thing coming" and "If she feels that way, she'll have another thing coming"

These sentences make no sense unless understood as variations on the "If you think that you've got another thing coming" corruption.

There can't be "another thing" when there was no first "thing".

The phrase means "if you think xyz, you're wrong, so you're going to have to think again". It's simple.

it means a slap upside your head doofuses. ie. You are demonstrably wrong. So very wrong that someone will hit you soon.

Because I've always said "thing", I go back beyond 1983, and I contend that the evidence for "think", as I've said, is just descriptive - it's just describing what the source heard people saying, not offering a ruling. The fact that one can use a whole load of other verbs in place of "think" - hope, pray, feel, believe, etc. - just reinforces this.

thing means slap upside your head etc.

You can't hit me OBM, I am just words on a screen. And I will continue to be words on a screen, more and more words, endlessly repeating my UNIMPEACHABLY CORRECT ASSERTION until I have worn UQD down. For he is WRONG.
And the proof of his wrongness is that he is trying to justify his incorrect use of a phrase which was intended as a PLAY ON WORDS, by offering ways in which you could say it differently. Which makes no sense at all.
As Iorek has so eloquently explained.
Is it bedtime now?

But my contention is always that it isn't a play on words. And the evidence which claims to show that it is, is misleading as it is just observational.

You don't get this on the Kylie/fisting/pubic hair art threads.

Blimey, UQD, since when is observational evidence unacceptable? If it is good enough for the OED, might I suggest that it is probably good enough for most people.

I don't know much about Kylie/fisting/pubic art (you did mean pubic rather than public?)

On the specific pacific point - people that do it can't help it. I am a Pedant of the first order so have been forced to bring the Pacific thing to their attention and have them repeat it over and over and they just cannot say it properly. Indeed they hear it as 'specific' in their head and are sure they are saying it the same as you. If you ask them to deliberately say PACIFIC they will say that slightly differently with second letter an 'a' rather than an 'e' when they think they are saying SPECIFIC. It is very odd. I know several people with this little quirk and have heard a few people do it on the telly too. Anyway they can't help it so best just to leave them to it.

On the Fink/think one - again some people just cannot pronounce TH. Apparantly I spent a whole year aged FREE but had grown out of that and was able to be THIRTEEN OK.

Finally - you have definately got another THINK coming! (and I'm Scottish too). I think it is older than 1930s though as I can clearly remember both my Grandmothers, born 1890s, using the expression. I understand it to mean that the 'another think' that is coming your way is the thought of the person making the comment to you who is about to correct your misguided thoughts, perhaps quite forcefully.

hurrah for rosa luxembourg and granny22 and IorekByrnison as you are all quite clearly SANE. And my mum is Scottish and taught me 'another think' at her knee. So there.