[ExI] Language Changing Before Our Very Eyes

[gts]

On Fri, 25 May 2007 01:09:07 -0400, Damien Broderick  
<thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> All right, that kind of "nearness" is not a spacetime measure, but that's 
> what underwrites the metaphor.

Hmm, interesting point. So you're saying "near" as we use the word in  
"near-miss" and "near-collision" is in both cases about space-time, if not  
actually then at least metaphorically? I can't argue with that.

> a near-miss IS a miss.

Yes but a near-collision is also a miss, and in fact a near-collision is  
the same sort of miss as a near-miss. So it seems something is amiss.

For example:

Asteroid on course for near-collision with Earth
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9803/12/asteroid/index.html

That headline makes perfect sense to me. I would not change it.

> But this is looking at the wrong level. Obviously the idiom is
> instantly understood...

Is it instantly understood? Seems to me someone learning English as a  
second language might easily interpret "near-miss" to mean "nearly a  
miss", i.e., a "hit". But in fact that is the meaning of its antonym.

If I had my druthers, I'd support the journalist's decision above to use  
"near-collision" and strike "near-miss" from the language.

-gts