4 ms·

English is not my native language, but shouldn't the headline have read "SFO near miss would have triggered aviation disaster"? "Might" seems to indicate that s

by watson 9y ago

English is not my native language, but shouldn't the headline have read "SFO near miss would have triggered aviation disaster"? "Might" seems to indicate that something else happened afterwards as a possible result of the near miss

batiudrami 9y ago
Yes, it's awkward phrasing which implies the near miss led to something else happening.
pluma 9y ago
Not a native speaker either (though I've been fluent for decades) and I find the title horribly misleading as well. "Might have triggered" implies the disaster happened, or at least that it's not known whether a disaster happened. "Would have triggered" implies neither the disaster nor the near-miss happened, so I think the most unambiguous phrasing would have been "could have triggered". OTOH I've seen native speakers use headlines like "Why this works?" (which by my understanding of the language shouldn't have a question mark), so IDK.
grecy 9y ago
I agree. English is my first language, and the more I read the headline, the more I see it as "Something terrible happened, and the near miss is possibly the cause".
- MBCook 9y ago
  When I fist saw the headline that's why I went to read it. I wanted to know how a near miss 'possibly caused' the biggest disaster in airline history. The story was very interesting. The title is technically valid. But as another native speaker I think it's very confusing.
bryanrasmussen 9y ago
the problem is that while Could is technically preferable to Might in this situation for exactly this reason, the proper distinguishing between the two conditions has long been vague. People will often use Could have when they mean might have. To be accurately and unambiguously understood by everyone it should be SFO near miss could have triggered aviation disaster but didn't. Since the completely unambiguous phrasing is not very elegant then Could have would be preferable, but with the understanding that for some people it will still have some ambiguity that needs resolving by actually reading the article.
pvg 9y ago
"Might" seems to indicate that something else happened afterwards as a possible result of the near miss In this case it doesn't, the headline can be interpreted in slightly different ways but is not wrong (or really that ambiguous) as written. Standard headline-speak for 'something happened that was a possible cause for something else that also happened' is 'may have caused' like here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/science/bright-nights-nocturnal-sun-zonal-waves.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/science/bright-nights-noc...

by watson 9y ago

batiudrami 9y ago

Yes, it's awkward phrasing which implies the near miss led to something else happening.

pluma 9y ago

Not a native speaker either (though I've been fluent for decades) and I find the title horribly misleading as well. "Might have triggered" implies the disaster happened, or at least that it's not known whether a disaster happened. "Would have triggered" implies neither the disaster nor the near-miss happened, so I think the most unambiguous phrasing would have been "could have triggered". OTOH I've seen native speakers use headlines like "Why this works?" (which by my understanding of the language shouldn't have a question mark), so IDK.

grecy 9y ago

I agree. English is my first language, and the more I read the headline, the more I see it as "Something terrible happened, and the near miss is possibly the cause".

MBCook 9y ago
When I fist saw the headline that's why I went to read it. I wanted to know how a near miss 'possibly caused' the biggest disaster in airline history. The story was very interesting. The title is technically valid. But as another native speaker I think it's very confusing.

bryanrasmussen 9y ago

the problem is that while Could is technically preferable to Might in this situation for exactly this reason, the proper distinguishing between the two conditions has long been vague. People will often use Could have when they mean might have. To be accurately and unambiguously understood by everyone it should be SFO near miss could have triggered aviation disaster but didn't. Since the completely unambiguous phrasing is not very elegant then Could have would be preferable, but with the understanding that for some people it will still have some ambiguity that needs resolving by actually reading the article.

pvg 9y ago

"Might" seems to indicate that something else happened afterwards as a possible result of the near miss In this case it doesn't, the headline can be interpreted in slightly different ways but is not wrong (or really that ambiguous) as written. Standard headline-speak for 'something happened that was a possible cause for something else that also happened' is 'may have caused' like here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/science/bright-nights-nocturnal-sun-zonal-waves.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/science/bright-nights-noc...