I guess not every headline writer got the memo that a "near miss" means they hit. (sigh)
“I guess not every headline writer got the memo that a “near miss” means they hit. (sigh)”
“Near” is an adjective, miss is the noun modified by the adjective. It’s still a miss.
"Near miss" doesn't mean "nearly miss," it means "missed when they were nearby." Everybody but grammar pedants understands this.
Gotta disagree, in the most respectful of ways. To me, the noun miss is determinative of the phrase's commonsense meaning.
Therefore, I think the phrase simply tells one that although the two objects were so "near" to one another as to make a collision seem likely, in fact there was no collision -- in other words, there was a miss.
Now if I interpret your post correctly, you're reading the phrase as if it says that the two objects "nearly missed" or "almost missed" one another. That's not an unreasonable interpretation, I guess, in terms of pure logic. But as we know, logic doesn't always rule in matters of idiomatic language. So I believe standard usage and plain meaning are on my side.