Answer: b.

Explanation:
Colloquial, jocular and apparently ungrammatical though it is, “another think coming” is the original saying.

The Word Detective reports that “another think coming” appeared in print in the late 1800s and notes that, according to the OED, “thing” results from a “misapprehension” of the expression.

Proponents of “another thing coming” often argue that the original saying plays fast and loose with the laws of grammar, because “think” is a verb rather than a noun. TWD –AKA Evan Morris — explains why they’re wrong:

But guess what? “Think” is a noun as well as a verb. “Think” the noun first appeared around 1834 meaning “an act or period of thinking” (“Let’s have a cigar and a quiet think,” 1891), and, by 1886, “a thought” or “an idea” (“A thing must be a think before it be a thing,” 1887). We rarely see this noun form of “think” today (outside of this particular phrase), but in the late 19th century when the phrase became popular, “another think coming” would have been understood as equivalent to “another thought coming,” i.e., a change of mind.

Nevertheless, “another thing coming” is more common now than the original saying, which probably means that — should it not die out altogether — it will become the correct form. It’s not yet, though, so stick with “think” in informal writing and avoid the expression in formal writing. And if you think I’ll change my mind … well, you never know. It has happened.

Follow me on Twitter @tao_of_grammar

Answer: Either, depending on where you are.

Explanation:

In the U.S., roofs is the standard plural of roof; elsewhere rooves is fairly common but becoming less so. The same holds true for an increasing number of words ending in “f.”

The standard/traditional rule for words ending in “f”  – the one I grew up with, of course — is that we substitute a “v” for the “f” and add “es” to form the plural:

The rule on “roofs” has changed so completely in the U.S. that Merriam-Webster no longer even has an entry for “rooves.” Although the standard rule for most words ending in “f” still holds,  in casual speech and writing words like “calfs,” “elfs” and “loafs” are appearing more and more. What that means, in all likelihood, is that more will follow and the old rule will change, so that words ending in “f” just take an “s” for pluralization, like most words ending in a consonant.

And there’s nothing wrong with that, other than that in the transitional period, people who say “calfs,” “elfs” and “loafs” may be ridiculed by those of us clinging to the old rule. That being the case, stick to the standard for formal writing.

Writers on the Net provides resources on irregular plurals.

A tip of the editor’s visor to @Guy_in_PEI for the inspiration for this post. (What, no one’s wearing those green eyeshades any more? Oh, I AM behind the times.)

Follow me on Twitter @tao_of_grammar

I understood positive anymore to be used as a synonym for “these days” or “nowadays.” It seems that it’s also sometimes used to mean “from now on.” The Wikipedia entry for positive anymore traces that use back to Northern Ireland at the turn of the 20th century:

“A servant being instructed how to act, will answer ‘I will do it any more’.” (Northern Ireland, c. 1898)^{[6] (From  The English Dialect Dictionary, 1898)}

And spots it again, getting on for the turn of the 21st century:

“I’ll be getting six or seven days’ holiday anymore.” (Belfast, Northern Ireland, 1981)^[3]

From the Wikipedia entry: “Positive anymore occurs in North American English, especially in the Midlands variety spoken in parts of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, and Missouri; its usage extends to Utah and some other western US states.” According to some linguists, it came to North America through Scottish/Irish sources.

On his linguistics blog, Ryan Denzer-King writes that “anymore” is what is called a negative polarity item (NPI): “NPIs are words or phrases that have to be scoped under some sort of negation, irrealis, or otherwise nonaffirmative clause.”

So, that’s where we are with that issue anymore … er, that anymore issue.

Follow me on Twitter @tao_of_grammar

@KenCarpenter: I grew up with “AN historic …” but today’s @WSJ has “A historic …” / Weigh in, please, @editormark @tao_of_grammar

@EditorMark: It’s “an” before a vowel sound. Sound is key. Silent h: “an honor.” Sounded h: “a historic.

@sumarumi: I’m old-school RP — I drop the ‘h’ in historic, so it’s ‘an historic’ for me.

@tao_of_grammar: In the 15th century, used to be “an” before any singular noun. OE for “one.” bit.ly/93tQoS

@Mededitor: Also note “humble pie” stems from “an umble pie” (umbles were offal).

@tao_of_grammar: I love that stuff! (archaic grammar, not offal)

I do love that stuff. One of the most thrilling moments I had when I lived in Newfoundland  — and there really were some — was having an elderly gent in Bonavista ask my husband and me “Have ye (pronounced “yee”) come from town this day?” I remember from a linguistics course in the mid-nineties that in some Nfld. outports and one isolated area in Virginia, there were still people who spoke what was, essentially, Elizabethan English. I swear, people sometimes even looked like they’d stepped out of portraits from that period. Even in Gander, where we lived, anachronisms hung on. We’d visit the corner store early and often looking for the Globe and Mail. The clerks would often say something along the lines of “Oh, moy darling, it won’t be here till this evening.” We were initially puzzled but then learned that “this evening” translated to “any time past noon.”

I’m not sure that the tendency to call everyone “moy darling,” “my dear,” “my duck” and so on is Elizabethan — but I love it too.

Follow me on Twitter @tao_of_grammar