Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Fun with Polls Can't Even Explain...

LOL, Laura! Your father sounds like my father. He figured (and I do agree) that since in general Americans are only required to learn one language - their own mother tongue - they should be required to speak it very well. When we'd say things like "Where is she at?" he'd say "Before the at!" It worked - I do the same thing when I hear someone use that dangling "at."

I'm guessing that the whole "thing" came about because when you say the phrase quickly, "think" often does sound like "thing." But I can give a lot of credence to Paul's argument that using "thing" makes sense because the phrase can be interpreted like this:

"If you think that..." - meaning, if you have a specific belief
"...you have another thing coming." - meaning, you have a big surprise coming in that you are wrong, or you have something coming that is not what you expect.

For example:
If you think that [you are getting a new car for your birthday], you've got another thing [a big disappointment] coming.

OR

Mr. Colombus, if you think that [the world is round], you've got another thing [a big shock when you fall of the edge of it] coming.

OR

If you think that [what you are saying is correct], you've got another thing [the realization that you are wrong] coming.

So what started off as an ungrammatically correct play on words turned into a phrase that actually contains a certain meaning. To which I argue, why can't both versions be used depending on context?

Lynn

Well, I can't ever see myself using 'thing' as it just makes no sense to me and just plain looks weird. And can't say I'm buying the explanation of its logic. <g> But then, vice versa applies for fans of 'thing', obviously.

So, I would argue in agreement - why not just use whichever version seems right and unweird to you? For me, this isn't a grammar question - it's a common saying. Which for me means there is no right way or wrong way to use it - it fully depends on geographical location and what you grew up with and what you're used to, as I see it. Most sayings are open to having more than one version depending where in the world they hail from. This is just one among many.

IOW, just tell your beta to sod off when she tries to correct it.

LabRat

Come to find out, I think you are right, LabRat, the bridge does need fixing.

Artemis

Grade 7 was the big year to learn this type of stuff. I was confused. To me it was just like math.

I have never since been in a situation where that type of stuff has been a part of a discussion...and yet I did my 12 years of normal school with 7.5 years of Univeristy all year round (except August). I feel stupid now.

I have always heard thing', but my brain has a tendency to squish words together and not hear things right, so I could have heard think and not know it. To me think sounds weird. I just asked my husband and he said think is correct. I feel really weird now - I've never heard of it that way!!! Me too!

I don't use sayings. I always feel awkward saying them.

The baby needs changed - that sounds really awkaward. My mouht doesn't even want to say it. It's acting like it is trying to say a tongue twister. The baby needs changing. The baby needs to be changed. I would use either of those...I've never had the need to use these sentences frequently! For me, it would depends on the speed of me wanting to get the words out.

The bridge needs fixed - I've never heard that before and to me that sounds horrid and awkward.

I honestly don't know what I say when it comes to the whole suprise issue. If I repeat a phrase long enough it all sounds unappealing! LOL.

Come to find out - I've never heard anything like that before. I'm coming to think Winnipeg is a hole and a lot of stuff is passing me by. My husband, who is into writing and good at it but is horrible w/ punctuation, has never heard of it. To him it sounds like ebonics.

I find this stuff fun

(Sorry if this is full of *bad* grammer. I'm horrid at it. Plus I have a person in the kitchen yelling at me to come make banana muffins.)

Yeah, I know. "The baby needs changed" sounds stupid to the rest of the country, but it's common usage here, and no one says "needs changing." I told you I was a hick from the sticks.

There's another one I never heard until I was 30. We always say, "I heard about him having an accident." But when I was 30, someone who grew up back east shuddered and told me the correct form was, "I heard about his having an accident."

That wasn't a grammatical form that was covered in 11th grade English, but I looked it up and found that the second form is the most generally correct, although the first one is correct if the emphasis is on the person rather than the action. How do you guys say it?

Around these here parts, we'd say 'him'.

I do think there's a distinct difference in what people say and what people write and I don't really hold with correcting the grammar of what people say. Most times. <g> It makes for an interesting world that there is so much variety in local and geographical ways of saying things.

And many people are well aware of the correct grammatical phrasing in many cases, but will use something that isn't, just because it's habit and what they've grown up with.

I kind of like 'come to find out' - sounds cute. And it's always fascinating to me when I learn some new phrase from an author.

Now, question of mine own: Yesterday, I read a teletext summary of a Stargate episode which said:

Now, even though you're talking about two people there and not one, I'd still want to say 'SG1's only hope is...'

Far be it that I consider SKY's sense of grammar to be accurate in any sense [half the time they can't even get a complete summary down without it ending halfway through a sentence :rolleyes: ), but it did get me wondering which one was correct. What do you think?

LabRat

I don't know if "hopes" is incorrect, but it doesn't sound right. Like Roo, I often don't know the rules, but I have a gut feeling for what sounds right and what doesn't. "Hopes" doesn't.

"SG1's only hope is Hammond and Teal'c" sounds OK to me.

Even if you reverse it, I'd still say:

"Hammond and Teal'c are SG1's only hope."

- Vicki

SKY is wrong, and needs to be beaten with something. A grammar book, maybe. SG1, while a collection of people, is a singular noun (like an organization), and the hope belongs to SG1. Therefore, it would be "hope".

I don't use the phrase in the poll, so can't really answer it.

As for the bridge question, I'd say "someone needs to fix the bridge!" or "they need to fix the bridge!" Or, perhaps "uh uh, no WAY, I'm not going out there, it's broke!" and start backing away slowly.

Actually, I think it's more ambiguous than that, Karen. Does the hope belong to SG1? Say you substituted the word 'hope' for 'friend' - then you'd pluralise 'friend' without any hesitation. Are the two characters in question 'hopes?' Hope one could be Hammond and hope two could be Teal'c.

On balance, I'd go with Rat and you, but I do also wonder whether this is a case where either syntax is valid.

Yvonne

I grew up saying "his having an accident" which is the way I heard it back in my home town in Arkansas. But that was more years ago than I care to mention in a time when correct grammar was the norm. There was no TV, and everyone who was on the radio had a distinctive voice and impeccable speech. Times sure have changed. (Yes, I know it should be surely, but we're using the vernacular here.)

As for those "hopes", I try very hard to avoid getting myself in that kind of corner. When I do, I usually say "hope is".

I think it depends what they're trying to express. If there are two people who, individually, are doing things either of which might save SG1, they are SG1's only hopes. However, if the pair together are doing something, that pair is SG1's only hope.

Interesting responses! Now, see, I was thinking about it from a different perspective entirely from most of you.

I was tending to focus on the hope rather than the people. It just being one hope. Singular. Why would they have more than one hope? They would hope to escape/be rescued/whatever. Wouldn't they? Would they? Does that make any sense whatsoever? They wouldn't hopes to be rescued. Although, they might have hopes of being rescued, I guess....

...I had a point and knew what I meant when I started this post, but now my brain has gone into a spasm of confusion...

It's one of those days...I really shouldn't try doing the thinking thing when my brain is in this mood.


LabRat

I was thinking as you were, Lab. In my interpretation, the focus is on the hope, which I would always assume was singular when used in this context. The word "only" implies a singluar hope. That hope comes in the form of two people, yes, but it is the hope that is being modified.

Trapped on Hathor's planet, SG1's only hopes are Hammond and Teal'c.

...this just sounds wrong, IMO. I'd write it as

Trapped on Hathor's planet, SC1's only hope is Hammond and Teal'c.

Unless, I guess, the two characters in question - Hammond and Teal'c - are not together and are independently working on different solutions, thus giving SG1 two chances (hopes). Even so, I think I'd still write the sentence differently to avoid the awkwardness we are currently discussing:

Trapped on Hathor's planet, SG1's remaining hopes rest on Hammond and Teal'c.

or

Trapped on Hathor's planet, SG1's only chances are Hammond and Teal'c.

I don't know. I just know it could be better, IMO.

Lynn

archbish already said exactly what I was thinking.

I wasn't notified that someone new had taken up residence in my head.




As far as those who keep pushing for another "thing," what was the FIRST thing? With "think" the first one is the erroneous one being commented upon.