4 of 4
4
Phrase confused
Posted: 28 April 2007 02:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1384
Joined  2007-01-29

I can’t google any reference to “if you thought that ... coming”.

You do right to shut the door, although a sharp kick would probably dislodge it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2007 02:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  155
Joined  2007-01-28

Without wishing to go round the roundabout yet another time, may I humbly suggest that “You’re gonna get what’s coming!” derives from the “thing” usage which, ahem, derives from the “think” usage.

That’s why I came here in the first place.

Any guess what the Yes song was referring to? One could be a roundabout and enjoy it. Or one could just be taking a turn in a spiked barrel.

No offense. I’m just trying to provoke discussion, which may make me an agent provocatuer

[ Edited: 28 April 2007 04:37 AM by foolscap ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2007 06:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3713
Joined  2007-01-29

we all have to get used to the fact that both usages are correct.

The question is not (at least for me) which usage is “correct” (since whatever a lot of people say is correct in their dialect) but which came first.  It would take an overwhelming amount of evidence and semantic explanation to convince me that the “thing” usage came first; it seems to me clearly parasitic on “think.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2007 06:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2198
Joined  2007-02-19

Absolutely. It was several hundred years ago that that French philosopher (Pascal? Descartes? Jacques Tati?) fell into the goldfish pond at the Petit Trianon and shouted out “I sink! Zerefore I exist!”, and was pulled out by a pragmatical Englishman, who said “You wotten fwog-eating Fwenchman, jutht for thaying that you have another think coming” and pushed him back in. It is on record that Pascal, Descartes et al. did, in fact, exist, or at least, thought they did. So do we. In time, we may have another think coming.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2007 03:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2983
Joined  2007-01-31

An earlier discussion of the nitpick-error law.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 August 2015 08:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2198
Joined  2007-02-19

(Misplaced posting deleted)

[ Edited: 13 August 2015 08:12 AM by lionello ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2015 11:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1265
Joined  2007-04-28

Regarding faux bring pronounced fox I’ve seen fox’s paw for faux pas though it may have been a joke. I’m sure sparrow grass for asparagus isn’t so you never know. I think they were cockney parlance, faux or otherwise.

I was watching a show called America’s Top Shot and couldn’t understand it when they all took turns firing at the faux targets until I realised it was foe targets. I have never seen foe used as an adjective before. Why didn’t they say enemy targets?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2015 12:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2198
Joined  2007-02-19

Possibly because “foe” has only one syllable, while “enemy” has three. Three syllables is one syllable more than millions of English speakers (save the mark!) are able easily to deal with.......

;-)

Hospital orderly (to terrified patient who has barricaded himself in the toilet):  Come on out! Nobody’s going to hurt you!

Terrified patient : Are you friend or enema?

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 4
4