[ExI] Language Changing Before Our Very Eyes

[Lee Corbin]

Damien writes
> 
> [gts wrote]
>
> > Why do people say "near-miss" when they really mean "near-collision"?
> 
> Because it was a miss that was near, or close, rather than a miss 
> that was far, or at least farther.

Yes, but aren't there really two quite distinct meanings of "near"
at issue here?   (Er, I mean that are causing a *problem* here.)

On the one hand, "near" can be a measure of distance. This is
what Damien means in his explanation, and what the 911 operator
hears.

On the other hand, "near" can mean *almost*, as in something that
almost or didn't quite occur.  Thus "near-collision" in the sense of
distance means the same thing as "near-miss" in the sense of "almost".

Leaving out some words---(I think)---and merely saying "that was
close!" seems to work okay both ways.

Lee

> I would rather have a miss near  than a father far closer.