3 ms·
I can't express how happy I am that this wasn't referred to as a 'near miss'. That particular colloquialism has always caused my brain to short-circuit briefly
by UI_at_80x24 7y ago
I can't express how happy I am that this wasn't referred to as a 'near miss'. That particular colloquialism has always caused my brain to short-circuit briefly while I translate that to literally mean impact/collision.
English is my primary language, and I do know how it is [near miss] intended, and I know that I should know better. But the translation always goes:
near miss -> almost miss -> didn't miss -> hit
I've always wondered if I was the only one.
- chx 7y agoGeorge Carlin agrees with ya
- CPLX 7y agoThe term near miss follows a very recognizable English pattern. I’m not sure why you’re reading it as non-standard phrasing. The word miss is a noun. It means something that did not collide. So if the incident was a “miss” it was a non collision. The word near is an adjective modifying the noun miss. So what kind of miss was it? It was a miss where the objects were near to each other. It was a near miss. An adjective before a noun is normal. I bought a car. What kind of car? A green car. The incident was a miss. What kind of miss? A near miss.
- JackFr 7y agoBecause you're thinking of 'near' in the sense of 'almost' rather than in the sense of 'physically close to'. In the latter sense the meaning is clear.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]