[ExI] Language Changing Before Our Very Eyes

[gts]

apologies if this message came through twice...

On Sat, 26 May 2007 14:49:36 -0400, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

>> 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"?

The journalist is free to do as he pleases, of course, but I don't think  
it unreasonable for us to wonder why the story changed from  
"near-collision" in the headline to "near-miss" in the text (a difference  
in opinion between the writer and the editor?)

In any case, concerning the different connotations of "near", Damien  
convinced me, despite my initial agreement with you, that both senses of  
"near" connote something like 'proximity-in-space-time', if not actually  
then at least metaphorically. That is to say, as Damien might, that even  
when "near" is used to mean "almost', the idea of proximity-in-space-time  
is what underwrites the metaphor. I think he's correct about that.

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

I'm not worried about accounting for everything - you do a fine job of  
accounting for everything --  but I am interested in the clear use of  
language. Treating "near-miss" and "near-collision" as synonyms is  
dubious, I say, no matter what is true about the word "near".

We don't treat "near-black" and "near-white" as synonyms.
We don't treat "near-top" and "near-bottom" as synonyms.
We don't treat "near-genius" and "near-moron" as synonyms.
We don't treat "near-freezing" and "near-boiling" as synonyms.

And this is all as it should be, because the second terms in each of these  
word pairs relate as near or exact antonyms.

But somehow "near-miss" and "near-collision" crept into the lexicon as  
effective synonyms, despite the obvious truth that "miss" and "collide"  
are antonyms.

I don't know if Damien agrees with me here -- I suspect not -- but as I've  
mentioned, I would avoid the use of "near-miss" because it might be  
interpreted easily by non-natives to mean "nearly a miss", i.e., a "hit",  
which is course exactly what it does not mean.

-gts