The curious case of the near miss 2

[kwbMitel]

I was reading about the asteroid that will make a close approach to Earth tomorrow in what was termed a "near miss"

I understand what is meant by this term but I have issues with its use.

Does near miss qualify as idiom to circumvent its self contradiction?

Just insert near in front of any other appropriate verb to get my meaning

e.g.
Near drowning = not drowned
Near death = not dead
Near miss = actual miss?

**********************************************
What's most important is that you realise ... There is no spoon.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> Does near miss qualify as idiom to circumvent its self contradiction?
Yes, but see below.

==> Just insert near in front of any other appropriate verb to get my meaning
That's not a reasonable comparison, and here's why. The use of "near" in "near drowning" and "near death" impart the meaning of "close but not quite", or "almost". He almost drowned; he almost died. That's very different from "near miss" because a near miss doesn't mean "close but not quite". The proper analogous term would be "near hit". Since "near miss" actually means "near hit", it's an idiom. But again, the other examples are not idioms.


--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something. - Plato

 

[kwbMitel]

I almost chose using near hit as an example but second guessed myself.

I can accept that near miss is idiom I suppose, but I won't use it myself. I'll typically use the term close approach (as above) or equivalent that avoids the self contradiction

BTW - its not fair to delete posts when someone calls you out on the misuse of a term

**********************************************
What's most important is that you realise ... There is no spoon.

 

[CajunCenturion]

I think we should also remember that "miss" has different things. If you nearly miss your flight, then that could be a "near miss", which for that case, I would argue is not idiomatic because the meaning is correct.

I wonder if the etymology of the term includes a military usage when sighting a weapon or range finding.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something. - Plato

 

[Annihilannic]

I saw something similar recently in an aviation safety publication... or poster... I can't remember which. It said there's no such thing as a near miss; it's a near hit. The point being that we shouldn't be so blasé about close calls in aviation when the consequences of a hit are rarely survivable.

Annihilannic
[small]tgmlify - code syntax highlighting for your tek-tips posts[/small]

 

[hjgoldstein]

As far as aviation is concerned, see

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1779&pageid=9864

Aspiring to mediocrity since 1957

 

[2ffat]

While that "close call" or "near miss" of the 150 footer will pass us by, a chunk of it didn't miss Russia. On a related note, this was a single meteor and not, as some news outlets are saying, a meteor shower nor a meteorite as it didn't hit the earth. It exploded above it.
Once again, some news people can't seem to get their scientific facts straight.


James P. Cottingham
I'm number 1,229!
I'm number 1,229!

 

[kwbMitel]

@ 2ffat - A it is not a meteor either unless it enters the atmosphere

**********************************************
What's most important is that you realise ... There is no spoon.

 

[kwbMitel]

@ 2ffat again. It occurs to me that your meteor/meteorite comment was related to the Russia event instead of the 150 footer that will pass us by. This was not entirely clear if this was the case.

**********************************************
What's most important is that you realise ... There is no spoon.

 

[ChrisHirst]

How can ANYTHING be a "near hit'??????


A hit, in this context is an impact, so anything that doesn't actually 'hit' is going to be a miss.



Chris.

Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Time flies like an arrow, however, fruit flies like a banana.
Webmaster Forum

 

[kwbMitel]

@ ChrisHirst

How can ANYTHING be a "near miss'??????

A miss in this context is a near impact so anything that doesn't actually 'miss' is going to be a hit.

**********************************************
What's most important is that you realise ... There is no spoon.

 

[Olaf Doschke]

What I found is this near miss was coined in aviation. If two planes miss, but still come very close, the term makes sense, even though your examples, kwbMitel, near drowning and near death suggest this meaning is wrong. But I think in the case of two planes obviously not hitting each other, but still coming dangerously close together I think a near miss describes that much better than a near hit, near collision, which I also found. Close call would perhaps be a better description also in case of the asteroid.

I would still say the other examples use another meaning of the word near, not the geometrical distance, so it's quite a good idiom or usage, I guess. Unless it would be called a near Miss. In that case it could be a welcome and non accidental situation.

Bye, Olaf.

 

[SamBones]

How can ANYTHING be a "near hit'??????

A meteor landing in Russia is a distant hit. A meteor landing in my back yard is a near hit.

 

[Annihilannic]

I think the root of the problem is confusion between "near" and "nearly". "Near hit" and "nearly hit" are not the same thing. So I agree with Chris earlier... "near hit" doesn't make much sense in the aviation context (it does so in Sam's example, but ... , whereas a case of "nearly hit" does.

Annihilannic
[small]tgmlify - code syntax highlighting for your tek-tips posts[/small]

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> I think the root of the problem is confusion between "near" and "nearly".
I don't think the problem is between the adjective 'near' and the adverb 'nearly' as much as it is multiple definitions of the adjective 'near'. One definition of near - meaning close with respect to an event happening - makes perfect sense in aviation. However, another definition of near - meaning close with respect to distance - is rather different.

You have to rely on context to understand which definition is in play. In SamBones' example, it's easy to see that the "close with respect to distance" meaning is being used. In aviation, if two planes violate separations minimums but to not make contact, and the situation is described as a "near hit", then it's equally clear that the "close with respect to an event happening" is the definition in play. That's also the definition in play with "near death" and "near drowning".


--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something. - Plato

 

[CajunCenturion]

I've done some research and the term "near miss" does have a military background. In WW2, the term "near miss" was a specific term used to identify a bomb, or other weapon, which missed its target, but was close enough to cause significant damage. Hence the term "near miss". Over time, the "cause significant damage" implication has been lost.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something. - Plato

 

[flyboytim]

So, as 2ffat states, regarding the fireball (neither meteorite nor meteor, but possibly a meteoroid, unless it was unclaimed man-made space debris) over Russia:

"...it didn't hit the earth. It exploded above it."

That was therefore a near miss, in terms of the collateral damage it caused, without hitting anything, whereas the close orbital approach of the asteroid was merely a close encounter, without any damage, and was not linked to the fireball in any way. Widely different trajectories and velocities were reported for each object. There have been reported fireballs that neither explode, nor hit, but bounce through the atmosphere and back into space (earth-grazing meteoroids), e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Great_Daylight_Fireball

No meteoritic fragments have been confirmed from the fireball. There was a circular hole in the ice on a nearby Russian lake reported, but such circular holes are described even without possible impacts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20eGtfGhEkE

(recently on February 3rd in Finland). Outgassing, warm currents from submerged springs, and other causes are described:

http://www.idniyra.org/articles/holes_in_ice.htm

All attempts to redefine "near miss" in terms of "hit" fail to recognise that a "hit" is an absolute quantity, whereas a miss by any missile (not a "hittile"!) may or may not have an effect on the target, and is thus relative. Depth charges are designed to work as "near misses", as accurate targeting underwater is problematic.

Should a star just a few light years away from our solar system go supenova, it would be a "near miss", but almost all life on earth could be extinguished in the gamma and other short-wave radiation storm that would follow just a few years later as the radiation passes through us, ripping apart the ionic integrity of our DNA and proteins. In the distant future, an alien cosmobiologist would find it difficult to identify what was the cause of the mass extinction.

 

[karluk]

Should a star just a few light years away from our solar system go supenova, it would be a "near miss", but almost all life on earth could be extinguished in the gamma and other short-wave radiation storm that would follow just a few years later as the radiation passes through us, ripping apart the ionic integrity of our DNA and proteins. In the distant future, an alien cosmobiologist would find it difficult to identify what was the cause of the mass extinction.

To take a less hypothetical example, I see Wikipedia says that Little Boy exploded 1,968 feet above Hiroshima, so it can arguably be called a "near miss". It just goes to show that the damage caused by a near miss can range from insignificant to virtually complete destruction of the target. Indeed, my understanding is that Little Boy was intentionally exploded above the target, so that the force of the blast would cover a wider area. Thinking about it makes me thankful I've never been in a position where doing my job to the best of my ability would, by definition, cause the maximum number of people to die.

 

[Olaf Doschke]

Thanks for that research, CajunCenturion.

Still, what's the deal after all this discussion?


>I was reading about the asteroid that will make a close approach to Earth tomorrow in what was termed a "near miss"
The asteroid was missing earth. And it was passing by very near. Makes it a near miss. I don't see anything wrong in that alone.

And even taking in the other examples:
near death: nearly dead
near drowning: nearly drowned

But you'd be making a mmistake to say
near miss: nearly missed

Near has another meaning in regard to miss.

if two planes violate separations minimums but to not make contact, and the situation is described as a "near hit"

No, I found near miss describing that situation, not near hit. It's about the same situation as with the asteriod, the planes miss each other, but get dangerously close.

Bye, Olaf.

 

[CajunCenturion]

If two planes get dangerously close, all these phrases -- 'near hit', 'near collision', 'near accident', and 'near miss' -- adequately describe the situation. Only one of them, however, is semantically illogical.

The semantic disconnect comes about because the phrase no longer carries the original meaning of the actual words, where it was a 'miss', but 'near' enough to cause damage or near enough to be somewhat effective. That's what the 'near' meant: near enough to cause damage. Today, there is no damage in a near miss; if there were, that event wouldn't be called a near miss. That's why 'near miss' IS an idiom; it does NOT mean what it says.

The meaning is understood, as are most idioms; however, that doesn't change the fact that the meaning of the phrase "near miss" is different than the meaning of the adjective 'near' applied to the noun 'miss'. And that, in a nutshell, is the semantic disconnect.

==> I see Wikipedia says that Little Boy exploded 1,968 feet above Hiroshima, so it can arguably be called a "near miss".
I would argue the position that they did hit the target because the target was an airburst between 1800 and 2000 feet AGL.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something. - Plato