Guild Wars 2

it says “he’s got another think coming.” but it should be another thinG coming.

It’s a common saying, ‘another think coming’, so it may not be a typo.

There’s been several threads about it over the years.

Language favours “got another think coming” especially if it comes after something like “well if he thinks that…”
It’s a rebuttal, basically. Calling someone out as false or incorrect.

The original expression is, “he’s got another thing coming.” Over the years, people have misheard it and misread it as, “he’s got another think coming.” Grammarians are still arguing about whether the new phrasing (a) works and (b) should be considered ‘standard’ now.

However, editors do not argue about this because: as soon as “think” appears in print instead of “thing,” they know it will generate discussions (like this one) and arguments (unlike this thread), distracting from the goal. Editors will, therefore, ask authors to change it so there’s no potential ambiguity.

Best way to get ANet to review this: use in the in-game /bug reporting tool and identify the NPC, the location, and the context.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

The original expression is, “he’s got another thing coming.”

I believe you’re the one with another think coming.

As I understand it ‘think’ is the original, as another way of saying, “if you think that, you’ll have to think again,” and ‘thing’ has appeared over the years as a mishearing, and is now the more commonly used.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

The original expression is, “he’s got another thing coming.” Over the years, people have misheard it and misread it as, “he’s got another think coming.” Grammarians are still arguing about whether the new phrasing (a) works and (b) should be considered ‘standard’ now.

You have it backwards. It was originally “another think coming”, and it’s been turned into “thing” over the years.

From what I can find out (according to the Oxford English Dictionary), ‘think’ appears in print in the late 1800s, whereas ‘thing’ first appears in print in the early 1900s.

Ultimately, though, it doesn’t matter, and either phrase is understood the same way. Language is a fluid think (sic), and mishearings are all part of how it evolves – otherwise, we’d all still be speaking like Shakespeare.

both uses are over 110 years old? hmmn — then I apologize for not having done the research properly.

Still, the point of my post was less about which version was proper and more about avoiding the problem altogether — it’s not very helpful to the story when people are distracted by whether it’s “have a think” or “have a thing”.