Because of the internet, I now look at the word "misled" and think "mizzled."

When I first learned to read, I had this same problem with "naked". I assumed that it was one syllable, and presumably the past tense of "to nake", whatever that was. It took a few years before I connected it with the spoken two-syllable word (with which, being a small boy, I was eminently familiar).

I think now's a perfect time to segueway into the topic of per say.

billytea, are you sure you've never heard anyone say "another think coming" because you've never heard either version of the phrase, or because you're sure they said "thing"?

"if you think that, then you've got another thing coming" is nonsense

Yeah--I've yet to see the explanation for that making sense, but...is the angle that it doesn't need to? If so, why not? It's the expression that's sometimes being shortened.

UNTIL NOW

::unchecks docking on Steph's file::

Okay--Elementary can't be proper Sherlock Holmes, because he says he sometimes hates it when he's right. *I* don't even hate it when I'm right. Sherlock Holmes certainly doesn't.

And, wow, ,I keep watching Person of Interest, and I keep reeling at how bad the dialogue is. These are not humans.

Speaking of non-humans.

billytea, are you sure you've never heard anyone say "another think coming" because you've never heard either version of the phrase, or because you're sure they said "thing"?

I've heard people say "you've got another thing coming". I don't think I've ever heard "If you think that, you've got another thing coming". Well, before today.

Yeah--I've yet to see the explanation for that making sense

See above. The "other thing" does not correspond with the thought, but with the content or object of that thought.

I've heard people say "you've got another thing coming"

Given how swallowed the pronunciation can be, I would have said I'd never heard anyone say "another thing coming" until I'd read it myself. I figured they were saying what I knew, until I knew there were two things--and even now, it's hard to tell. That's why I ask.

The "other thing" does not correspond with the thought, but with the content or object of that thought.

Then contexts in which I am used to it, there is a second thought, not a second...thing. The expression means "think again", not .... see? I confused myself already, and I've been reading explanations of the heresy all day.

Unrelatedly, I am loving Suri's Burn Book for all the distilled mean I'm no longer getting from the Fug Girls and it amuses the fuck out of me that it's being published in meatspace. Celebrity is so confusing these days.

I don't know who Halford is, and I don't' care if you tell me, I will still not know.

Everyone was so caught up with two perfectly cromulent idioms, you all let this pass without comment. FOR SHAME.

Then contexts in which I am used to it, there is a second thought, not a second...thing. The expression means "think again", not .... see? I confused myself already, and I've been reading explanations of the heresy all day.

I thought the expression(s) meant "You're wrong", or maybe "You're about to find out how wrong you are" (further implications of which would be contextual). I can parse either expression that way. I can't really parse "you've got another think coming" as "think again", because the latter leaves open the possibility that the thinker will do so and still arrive at the same thought. The former reads like a statement of fact (or at least a promise), the latter an exhortation.

I can't really parse "you've got another think coming" as "think again", because the latter leaves open the possibility that the thinker will do so and still arrive at the same thought.

Well, no. The points are a) you're gonna rewind, have your thought again but b) this time your conclusion will be the correct one, i.e. mine.

You had a think--it turned out wrong--so go back to your room and don't come back out until you've had the think we both know is right, young man!

I will freely admit I paged back 90 or so posts and didn't actually see the post that explained what the thing was.

I cannot believe how many Buffistas are so so wrong on the Internet! They have another think coming!!!

Hmph.

Also, I do not want to live in either Nashville or Indianapolis, but I am severely jealous of the price of Kate's house and of my sister's. Much as I like Seattle, and it's cheaper than some places...

Well, no. The points are a) you're gonna rewind, have your thought again but b) this time your conclusion will be the correct one, i.e. mine.

I still don't see how "think again" gets someone there. Let's say we currently have a choice between
1. "think again" and
2. "you are about to find out that you're wrong".

You've postulated points a to b, which I think can be relevant to either statement. My contention is that each reading of the statement(s), 1 and 2, can be viewed as bringing the listener to the state where points a/b can occur. In either reading, the speaker may be taken to want the listener to think again and reach another conclusion.

(Side caveat: I assume here we're talking about the specific situation where we start our declarative with "If you think that...". As previously noted, "you've got another thing coming" is more widely applicable. But here I assume we are talking specifically about someone's thoughts.)

My contention is that reading 1 states that the speaker wants the listener to think again, and may indicate that they want them to reach a different conclusion. (I can picture other contexts where one exhorts another to "think again", not because they're concerned about the conclusion, but because some of the reasoning seems sloppy and needs to be tightened up.) What I think is missing is that it gives the listener no reason to do so. It's merely an exhortation, which can be accepted or rejected as the listener sees fit.

Reading 2, I posit, likewise is intended to lead to points a and b; but both treats it as an expectation rather than a plea, and points to the reason why the person is going to do so. "You are about to find out" indicates there will be additional evidence or other motivation about to be presented, that shall of course declare the listener to be wrong-headed by its sheer awesomeness. Reading 1 is compatible with this, but isn't tied to it.

td, kr: I read "you've got another thing/k coming" as being a declaration, not an exhortation; and as not standing alone, but as introducing a refutation. I read "think again" as standing on the other side of these criteria.

I will freely admit I paged back 90 or so posts and didn't actually see the post that explained what the thing was.

I'm hoping it was a retelling of "The Cat in the Hat".

I cannot believe how many Buffistas are so so wrong on the Internet! They have another think coming!!!

FLYING SQUIRREL SUPREMACIST!

You're right about cilantro though. EXCEPT IT'S CALLED CORIANDER! SPEAK ENGLISH!!