[ExI] Language Changing Before Our Very Eyes

[Lee Corbin]

gts writes

> "Asteroid on course for near-collision with Earth"
>
> That headline makes perfect sense to me. I would not change it.
> 
> Interestingly, despite the headline, the first paragraph of the article  
> states that the asteroid's course toward Earth is a near-miss, not a  
> near-collision...
> 
> What happened? Did the asteroid change course while the author was writing  
> the article?

Explain again what I am missing [sic, har har har]. Why isn't the
writer free to use two different meanings of the word "near"?
As I said---and as I thought that you and Damien had conceded
---the first sentence (headline) in expanded form reads

       "Asteroid on course for near-collision [near as in the sense
       of *almost*, or *not-quite*, i.e., NOT a collision at all]"

and the seconds sentence reads

       "the asteroid's course toward Earth is a near-miss [in the
       sense of a certain KIND of miss, namely *near-in-distance*
       but still a type of true miss]".

Doesn't the idea that there are two different and separate usages
of "miss" rather simply account for everything?

Lee