Author Topic: Just in case (Read 2239 times)

Jonathon · « **on:** August 18, 2006, 11:59:44 AM »

I just read this Language Log post, and I'm a little baffled. I don't think I've ever heard "just in case" used in the way Geoffrey Pullum says it's used in the US, which is "if and only if." To me, it always means "in the event that" or something along those lines. It sounds to me like less of a British-American division and more of a jargon-layman division.

Thoughts?

rivka · « **Reply #1 on:** August 18, 2006, 12:48:10 PM »

What the heck is he talking about? Maybe "only in the case," but certainly not "just in case." I'll check with my dad, though.

Neutros the Radioactive Dragon · « **Reply #2 on:** August 18, 2006, 01:33:34 PM »

I thought Justin Case was some sort of actor.

rivka · « **Reply #3 on:** August 18, 2006, 02:26:23 PM »

Quote

I have never heard this usage and wouldn't understand its meaning (well, I would in this sentence only because there is only one way to put the two halves together).

Teshi · « **Reply #4 on:** August 18, 2006, 02:40:27 PM »

Now, I can see how this could exist. All you have to do is add the word "the", as in,
"Just in the case". The 'just', here, means 'only', leading to: "only in the case".

I can easily see how someone could confuse the two, as people have confused things like "I could care less"- only this one changes the meaning, rather than the words.

However, I agree that usually the phrase means what it has always meant.

He does say:

Quote

as used by those trained in the formal sciences and philosophy

So he is naming a specific group. It could be less widespread than he imagines because, being not in the country, he only has a very limited selection of evidence to pull from. If all the evidence suggests that "just in case" has acquired a "the" then he might come to

The comment about the end about

Quote

I do not normally have much regard for the old saying about the British and the Americans being two nations divided by a common language; but it really does come to mind here.

Is supposed to be the punchline- such that it is. I think it's supposed to be a bit funny. However, being North Americans, it's not that funny because we know how small the group using 'just in case' is, and so it makes no sense.

Also, there's always been a joke in the UK about how Americans "can't speak English", so it's probably playing on that "oh, those silly Americans" joke, which is similar to the "oh, those silly British" joke which Americans have.

I already posted this once today, on Sakeriver, but I feel it's appropriate again.

rivka · « **Reply #5 on:** August 18, 2006, 03:08:41 PM »

Quote

He does say:

Quote
as used by those trained in the formal sciences and philosophy

Which is why I checked with my dad, who has half a dozen papers published each year.

The editor who called foul on the phrase was exactly right to do so.

Unfortunately, the blog has neither comments nor a listed email address.

Mr. Anderson · « **Reply #6 on:** August 18, 2006, 08:06:14 PM »

It makes sense how it could mean that, but I've never heard it like that before.

pooka · « **Reply #7 on:** August 19, 2006, 05:30:16 AM »

I don't understand why anyone would use "just in case" in technical or scholarly writing. I read it 100% as the "take an umbrella just in case it rains".

But my exposure to scholarly writing revolved pretty tightly around subsyllabic phonology and Arabic phonology from 10 years ago, so I'm not a supergreat example.

rivka · « **Reply #8 on:** August 22, 2006, 12:55:08 PM »

He has updated the entry with some qualifiers.

Not enough, IMO. He's still insisting this is common jargon among American "logicians and mathematicians." But as far as I can determine, has only proven that it is used by philosophers. And everyone knows they have no grounding in reality.

Jonathon · « **Reply #9 on:** August 22, 2006, 01:06:00 PM »

And he's still presuming that the editor is British. Even if the editor specializes in philosophical academic publishing, it wouldn't be surprising if they didn't know that usage.

rivka · « **Reply #10 on:** August 22, 2006, 01:24:03 PM »

It amuses me that this is the same fellow whose post (yesterday's) on the biblical use of "they" was brought up on Hatrack by Equae Legit. (And he totally stole it from Steg, whose blog I even read every so often.)

Jonathon · « **Reply #11 on:** August 22, 2006, 01:38:20 PM »

Actually, that post was written by Mark Liberman, not Geoff Pullum.

So why is that amusing?

(Also, where's that discussion on Hatrack?)

Edit: Just found the thread.

Porter · « **Reply #12 on:** August 22, 2006, 01:40:14 PM »

http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb...ic;f=2;t=044569

rivka · « **Reply #13 on:** August 22, 2006, 03:59:13 PM »

Quote

Actually, that post was written by Mark Liberman, not Geoff Pullum.

So why is that amusing?

Have we not previously discussed that I am easily amused? It's an "of all the blogs in the world, you hadda walk into mine" sort of thing.

And yes, now I see that it is a group blog. I hadn't realized.

Jonathon · « **Reply #14 on:** August 22, 2006, 04:07:59 PM »

I still don't get it. What does one post have to do with the other?

rivka · « **Reply #15 on:** August 22, 2006, 04:17:31 PM »

Absolutely nothing.

Which is exactly why I find it amusing.

Jonathon · « **Reply #16 on:** August 22, 2006, 04:20:02 PM »

*blank stare*

Um, okay.