You've got another think coming...

[soupyspoon]

I mean god preserve us (someone will pick me up that I didn't capitalise god ...)

Another thread, which I think we're not allowed to talk about probably, massive argument about...

You've got another think coming.

People think that it's 'you've got another thing coming'

Thing absolutely does NOT make sense and is NOT fine to use. So many idiots

It makes sense but it's not a 'saying' and the 'another' is superfluous. It's not a play on words.

It may not be a play on words, but that doesn’t make it wrong.

But it's not a saying that people will repeat (and argue about the origin) for decades or centuries to come and the 'another' is superfluous in that sentence so it sounds wrong anyway. What was the first surprise?

So what is your rule for what idioms it makes sense to use? They're established by usage.

It's easy to call people idiots because you don't use the same idioms as them, though that's a bit pointless and rude when the thread and wider Internet are full of evidence that both idioms are acceptable. How do we know this? Because both are widely used and understood. Objectively, they're both established idioms. People foot-stamping on this thread doesn't change reality.

We all grow up with and acquire a variety of idioms, and some that are familiar to some are obscure or unwieldy to others. That's fine. Language is complex and variable, and it's nobody's private property.

If you think any of that actually makes sense…. you’ve got another think coming.

Michael Bubles will have got it wrong, just because he’s Michael Bubles. On my “kick the telly in if s/he are on it” meter, MB is my number one. Smug, unfunny, fake charming. I wouldn’t trust one lyric he sang … phew, I feel better now my loathing of said twat has been aired publicly (albeit anonymously 🤣)

Think, not thing

If you think I've got another think coming you've got another thing coming

The clue is in the word another.

I agree and I bloody dread the run up to Christmas (starting in October) cos I hear him all the bloody time!

Not to derail, but I detest that stupid Christmas Sweater song that he sings (I know it's a cover version).

It's all happy and jolly sounding on the surface, but it actually betrays a bullying, coercive and controlling attitude on the part of the main protagonist. If he's like that about a jumper, you can only imagine what he's like when it comes to serious issues.

Should of.
Would of.
Might of.
Chester draws.
They was.
We was.
You was.
I seen.
I done.
Etc. (or indeed ect...)

Bastardised versions of an original which have all come into common usage (ugh, I just threw up in my mouth a little bit at the thought of it).

Should we just say they're OK because lots of (stupid) people use them? Even though they make no sense?

And yes, I could also happily join in on what should clearly be another whole, long thread about the gross annoyance that is Michael Buble.

These aren't idioms (though some are regionalisms).

No, but they are (particularly ugly) examples of language changing to accommodate common usage. It's the same thing.

I agree; in most situations and as word play ‘think’ is correct. But there are circumstances where ‘thing’ also makes sense, if the context is an object. If you think you’re getting a Louis Vuitton bag for Christmas, you’ve got another thing coming…. Because you’re either getting a fake bag or a Waitrose bag for life 😂

That’s why English is so great, and why in my many years living outside the UK I have had so many conversations with non-native speakers about its vagaries!

The original idiom makes that same point though, that's what it's for. But in that case, if you want to be more specific about shit bags and that's what you're trying to say, then this particular idiom is inappropriate for the circumstances. Find another one.

I wouldn't agree. Your list is all of constructions that don't qualify as formal standard English. Fine. That's a distinction that can be maintained.

It's not the same as taking one colloquial phrase and declaring it anathema while accepting only a variant colloquial phrase as correct. Both have entered the language through adoption and repetition and both do their job. No rule has been broken.

It’s only inappropriate because you think so. Both work in that situation. Language evolves, and I find that those who dogmatically stick to one interpretation often lack the imagination or intelligence to adapt or understand that some things are rigid for a reason (so could of / should of are always wrong) whereas some can vary depending on the context (think / thing) ;)

Ah, you see I think those who use 'thing' instead of 'think' for this phrase are the ones lacking intelligence. I tend to feel the same about 'you was' and 'chester draws'. They act as a useful marker in the 'when someone shows you who they are, believe them' sense. They're telling me they're a bit thick and I appreciate the warning.

It’s okay if you don’t understand the context :)
Perhaps you also missed the nuance - hence the ;) in my original post. Thats okay too :)

If you want to create division - and put yourself on the side of the winners - you'll always find a way. Just don't be surprised when people more expert in the area disagree with you on what you can deduce from language usage.

Most won't confuse knowledge with intelligence by judging you, nor merit with opportunity by avoiding you as somehow beneath them. But if you want to feel superior to others, you'll find your rationale one way or the other.

The thing is whatever you'll be wearing instead of the skirt, or the fact that you'll be wearing something other than the skirt - either works.

Well that makes sense NOT

The saying was "think" but obviously some people (idiots) misheard and thought it was "thing" even though that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Gradually more people used "thing" but no way does that make it right because it's not.

Tell me please how "if you think you are going out in that short skirt you have another thing coming" makes any sense at all. Also how can there be ANOTHER thing when there was not a first one?