McEvoy notes about the link he his self forwarded – one good thing about it is
that it relies on Grice’s notion of ‘implicature’ – but so does the contrary
explanation, so there! --:
“The Grammarist[’s] explanation, that ‘thinK’ switches to ‘thinG,’ in most
understanding, because ‘thing’ is more grammatical and also makes 'sense', is
plausible. But there may be much more to it. […T]he switch may be facilitated
(this switch being itself a conjecture to be tested) because ‘another thinG
coming’ has more [of a] generalised [Fregeian] sense than ‘another thinK
[coming]". Hence (a) ‘another thinG coming’ may be used in a way distanced from
an act of thinking e.g. ‘If you put your money in Apple shares to triple it
like Bono, you've got another thing coming,’ i.e. much less than your money
tripled; (b) the phrase ‘another thinG coming’ lends itself to correct use more
easily than ‘another thinK [coming], precisely because its [Fregeian] sense is
not so dependent on its relation to an act of thinking [or thinging]; (b) the
phrase ‘another thing [coming]" allows greater range of implicature and sense
than "another thinK [coming]’, and so it spreads meme-like for this reason also
- it has greater problem-solving capacity (as it might be put in Popperian
terms). But these are just speculations/conjectures, to be tested against the
history of the use of the expressions - and perhaps tested also by tests as to
how meaning develops [and how misunderstanding gets spread and implicatures
fossilized]. In this context, we should be wary of taking newspaper and other
published examples as a barometer of general (unpublished) usage. Let's accept
the originator [the original utterer] was trying for an [Griceian] affect [and
intentional effect, via implicature] by knowing ungrammaticalosity (look, I'm
doing it myself); as well as taking advantage of the fact that his
'ungrammatical' is more effective than the grammatical alternatives (i.e.
better than "If you think that, you have another [contrary] thought coming",
and other variants). This kind of device is well-known in advertising (although
I am so practised in resisting such devices, I cannot now recall a single
example). In song-writing, Kristofferson uses it "There is lots of lovely
drinks that I ain't drunk/And lots of lovely thoughts that I ain’t thunk"
["Best Of All Possible Worlds"] and he had a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford to
study English so he must know what he's doing. The kind of affect intended [or
effect intended] by the originator may be too specific and limited for this
usage not to be overtaken by a more generalised one, and this may lie at the
heart of the switch. Much as this switch may be decried on grounds it
represents a slackening of linguistic sensitivity, none of the artillery
available to sticklers may hold off the big battalions. There's at least one
important point missing from my last post: part of the reason the originator's
"think" works is because "think" so closely resembles "thing", which would be
grammatical - thus "think" has a clever air, in its punning on "thing", and by
punning on "thing", which would be grammatical, it lessens any sense the
"think" usage is a (mere) solecism” [Solecisms are hardly mere!]. I mention
this to represent that line of thought, traceable to the noble Romans, which
holds that "think" and "thing" may be considered as sympathetic rather than
antipathetic in this particular usage (see Livy).”
Yes, that makes sense. It’s a bit like:
Pascal to Descartes: “If you think that the fact that you think is a reason for
you to exist, you’ve got another think coming!”.
“I'm not surprised.”
Ritchie calls it [all] ‘crystal clear’ when he refers to the time “when
[teachers] were hard as nails and always ready to attack you with exercise
books, rubbers, pieces of chalk, they were crystal clear that the phrase was,
“Oh so that’s what you think is it sonny Jim? Well you’ve got another think
It’s true Ritchie then adds a disjunction which weakens the claim slightly: “It
was always done so that you could reflect on your misdeads, omissions, etc.
until the error of your ways became apparent, or you hit upon a suitable plan
for revenge, or both.”
But the think seems enough of a Griceian think to me!
If one has a _rationale_ for something, seeing that 'rationes essendi' count,
one should go for that _rationale_.
One reads: ""Another think coming" is the original form of the colloquial
phrase aimed at someone who has a mistaken view."
The polemic one sometimes witness concerns the fact that one sometimes sees
"another THING coming," rather!
The Griceian rationale is clear enough in the above statement:
""Another think coming" is the original form of the colloquial phrase aimed at
someone who has a mistaken view."
Or, to make it even _clearer_:
""Another think coming" is the original form of the colloquially, intentionally
MISTAKENly ungrammatical phrase, aimed at someone who has a MISTAKEN view."
It may be possible to formalise that, minding your ps and qs. Say somone has
utterered "p," -- or, rather an utterance "x" by which the utterer thereby
signifies or means that p, and that the utterer judges to be "mistaken" (The
utterer holds that "~p," as it were).
By using "think" which, in Cockney English does sound like 'thing,' the utterer
manages to IMPLICATE that nobody is irrefutably right! ("q" would be something
like “"Think" is a correct way to express the noun "Thought"”).
If you THINK this is too Popperian for a Griceian, you may have another think
(A Popperian think _might_ be coming if one follows the disjunct in Ritchie’s
utterance cited above – or not!)