A new MAX 8 was also <involved in that calamity>

NewAmerica

Senior Member
Mandarin
The expression "involved in that calamity" sounds confusing to me, as if it was the third tragedy along with the Sunday’s crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 (and the Oct. 29 crash of a Lion Air plane).

What does "involved in that calamity" mean? Simply involved but had no accident (no casualties)?

*************
The accident drew immediate parallels to the Oct. 29 crash of a Lion Air plane that plunged from the skies above Indonesia and into the Java Sea, killing all 189 passengers and crew members.

A new MAX 8, an upgraded, more fuel-efficient aircraft from Boeing’s popular 737 line, was also involved in that calamity. In both instances, the pilots tried to return to the airport a few minutes after takeoff but were not able to make it back. And both flights experienced drastic speed fluctuations during ascent.

Source: USAToday 'A punch in the nose for Boeing': Second fatal crash raises questions about plane's safety
 
  • entangledbank

    Senior Member
    English - South-East England
    What is a little odd is to say that a plane that crashes is 'involved in' its crash. This is very mild language. The weather might be involved with it, but the plane itself is . . . right in the middle of it.

    But no, the sense of 'that calamity' is clearly the Lion Air crash.
     

    NewAmerica

    Senior Member
    Mandarin
    Thank you.

    What is a little odd is to say that a plane that crashes is 'involved in' its crash. This is very mild language. The weather might be involved with it, but the plane itself is . . . right in the middle of it.

    But no, the sense of 'that calamity' is clearly the Lion Air crash.
    Yeah that is odd. I am still confused: What does being "involved in" mean in such crash? Did the involved one communicate with the crashed one immediately before the accident?
     

    entangledbank

    Senior Member
    English - South-East England
    No, there isn't another one. That's the point. There's just the one that crashed. It's like saying if you get born, or married, or die, you're 'involved in' that event - not how we'd usually use 'involved'.
     

    Packard

    Senior Member
    USA, English
    It reads to me like misguided effort to repeat using "crash" or "accident", either one of which would have been a better choice of words avoiding the need for this thread entirely.

    And although they managed to avoid repeating "accident" or "crash" they did repeat "involved" so I don't see the point.
     

    NewAmerica

    Senior Member
    Mandarin
    No, there isn't another one. That's the point. There's just the one that crashed. It's like saying if you get born, or married, or die, you're 'involved in' that event - not how we'd usually use 'involved'.
    Then the question remains still. The expression "A new MAX 8, an upgraded, more fuel-efficient aircraft from Boeing’s popular 737 line, was also involved in that calamity" sounds very confusing since the author at the very beginning has mentioned the "Ethiopian Airlines Boeing’s 737 MAX 8 aircraft" that is followed by mentioning Lion Air's 737 MAX 8 aircraft. Thus, isn't the mention of "a new MAX 8" naturally provoking the reader to think a third one MAX 8?
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    But no, the sense of 'that calamity' is clearly the Lion Air crash.
    No, there isn't another one. That's the point. There's just the one that crashed. It's like saying if you get born, or married, or die, you're 'involved in' that event - not how we'd usually use 'involved'.
    At first, I thought that "a new Max 8" referred to the recent crash, but now I see it's the Lion Air. And so, I think "that calamity" must be referring to the new crash, because that is what the main topic of the article is, so the reference now seems logical to me.
     

    Egmont

    Senior Member
    English - U.S.
    Not to me. "That calamity" clearly refers to the one just mentioned, the Lion Air crash on October 29. Also, the word "both" in the next sentence tells us that there were exactly two crashes.
     

    NewAmerica

    Senior Member
    Mandarin
    Not to me. "That calamity" clearly refers to the one just mentioned, the Lion Air crash on October 29. Also, the word "both" in the next sentence tells us that there were exactly two crashes.
    Well, the author's grammar is: A Max 8 crashed (2 days ago)
    B Max 8 crashed (4 months ago)
    Now, "a new Max 8 was also involved..." (this naturally makes the reader think C Max 8 was also involved)
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    Not to me. "That calamity" clearly refers to the one just mentioned, the Lion Air crash on October 29. Also, the word "both" in the next sentence tells us that there were exactly two crashes.
    It says earlier in the article:
    It’s no wonder, then, that a number of questions are being raised about the safety of Boeing’s 737 MAX 8 aircraft, the plane involved in Sunday’s crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, which nosedived to the ground outside the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa, killing all 157 on board.
    So it's clear that the Ethiopian Airlines plane has already been mentioned as involved in a crash, and so the OP says that the Lion Air plane was "also involved" in "that calamity" (=the same kind of crash as the Ethiopian Airlines plane).
     

    Florentia52

    Modwoman in the attic
    English - United States
    Well, the author's grammar is: A Max 8 crashed (2 days ago)
    B Max 8 crashed (4 months ago)
    Now, "a new Max 8 was also involved..." (this naturally makes the reader think C Max 8 was also involved)
    No, the author's grammar is:

    A. A MAX 8 crashed two days ago
    B. A Lion Air plain crashed four months ago. The plane involved in that crash was also a MAX 8.
     

    NewAmerica

    Senior Member
    Mandarin
    No, the author's grammar is:

    A. A MAX 8 crashed two days ago
    B. A Lion Air plain crashed four months ago. The plane involved in that crash was also a MAX 8.
    Okay, my feeling becomes oddly better now by reading this reply. (Isn't it better for the author to word it as "in that kind of calamity"?)

    Thank you all.
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    No, the author's grammar is:

    A. A MAX 8 crashed two days ago
    B. A Lion Air plain crashed four months ago. The plane involved in that crash was also a MAX 8.
    If we look at the original sentence, which is...

    "A new MAX 8, an upgraded, more fuel-efficient aircraft from Boeing’s popular 737 line, was also involved in that calamity."

    It's clear you had to drastically change the author's grammar, which was:

    A Lion Air Max 8 was also involved in that (kind of) crash.
     

    JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    What does "involved in that calamity" mean? Simply involved but had no accident (no casualties)?

    The accident drew immediate parallels to the Oct. 29 crash of a Lion Air plane that plunged from the skies above Indonesia and into the Java Sea, killing all 189 passengers and crew members.
    A new MAX 8, an upgraded, more fuel-efficient aircraft from Boeing’s popular 737 line, was also involved in that calamity. In both instances, the pilots tried to return to the airport a few minutes after takeoff but were not able to make it back. And both flights experienced drastic speed fluctuations during ascent.

    Source: USAToday 'A punch in the nose for Boeing': Second fatal crash raises questions about plane's safety
    The "that" clearly (to native speakers, at least) refers back to the Lion Air crash (=calamity). "Kind of" is not the correct interpretation. The sentence could have been written, "The plane that was involved in that calamity was also a new Max 8..."
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    The "that" clearly (to native speakers, at least) refers back to the Lion Air crash (=calamity). "Kind of" is not the correct interpretation. The sentence could have been written, "The plane that was involved in that calamity was also a new Max 8..."
    First they say:

    ... Boeing’s 737 MAX 8, the plane involved in Sunday’s crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 ...

    Then they go on:

    The accident drew immediate parallels to the Oct. 29 crash of a Lion Air plane that plunged from the skies in Indonesia and into the Java Sea, killing all 189 passengers and crew members.

    A new MAX 8, an upgraded, more fuel-efficient aircraft from Boeing’s popular 737 line, also was involved in that calamity.


    "Also was involved" refers back to the first red "involved". What word could you replace "calamity" with? "kind of crash" would work, wouldn't it? Now replace it with "the Oct. 29 crash of a Lion Air plane", would it work for you? It wouldn't for me, since it would mean the Lion Air plane was another plane involved in the Oct. 29 crash:confused:


     

    dojibear

    Senior Member
    English - Northeast US
    The phrase "a MAX 8 was also involved in that crash"
    means "a MAX 8 was also the kind of airplane that was in that crash".

    The verb "involved" means nothing else. Think back to Sherlock Holmes mystery stories, written in the 1890s. You will read sentences like What factor was involved in each of these crimes? What was the common factor in each of these crimes?

    An airplane crash may be partially pilot error. But it may also be partially an airplane flaw. A modern large airplane is the single most complicated machine in the world, and they are designed and built by humans. Naturally, they have flaws.
     

    Egmont

    Senior Member
    English - U.S.
    Some people seem to be confused by the phrase "a new MAX 8." To them, it might mean "a MAX 8 not previously mentioned here;" that is, a third MAX 8. It does not. It just means that the Lion Air MAX 8 had been manufactured recently; that is, it was a new airplane.
     

    dojibear

    Senior Member
    English - Northeast US
    I agree with #23. "New" means that the 2 airplanes in the 2 crashes were recently built airplanes. They were not airplanes that had flown hundreds of trips.
     

    RM1(SS)

    Senior Member
    English - US (Midwest)
    The accident drew immediate parallels to the Oct. 29 crash of a Lion Air plane that plunged from the skies above Indonesia and into the Java Sea, killing all 189 passengers and crew members.

    A new MAX 8, an upgraded, more fuel-efficient aircraft from Boeing’s popular 737 line, was also involved in that calamity. In both instances, the pilots tried to return to the airport a few minutes after takeoff but were not able to make it back. And both flights experienced drastic speed fluctuations during ascent.

    Source: USAToday 'A punch in the nose for Boeing': Second fatal crash raises questions about plane's safety
    1. An Ethiopian Airlines plane (a newly delivered Max 8) crashed on 10 March.
    2. "The accident drew immediate parallels to the Oct. 29 crash of a Lion Air plane," because ...
    3. ... the Lion Air plane was also a new Max 8.
     

    PaulQ

    Banned
    UK
    English - England
    Now, "a new Max 8 was also involved..." (this naturally makes the reader think C Max 8 was also involved)
    :)
    I wondered why you thought there were three.

    "A new" is often used to mean "another"; "one that has not been mentioned before" - "The soldiers approached us and barred our way. After a while, a new soldier joined them and started to ask us questions."

    But in this case "new" = novel -> a new model of. In this sense, "new" does not mean "directly from the factory or seller - it is broader than that - it also means "quite recently acquired."

    These two meanings are sometimes difficult to separate: "I have bought a new car; it is only 4 years old and is in very good condition."
     

    NewAmerica

    Senior Member
    Mandarin
    The "that" clearly (to native speakers, at least) refers back to the Lion Air crash (=calamity). "Kind of" is not the correct interpretation. The sentence could have been written, "The plane that was involved in that calamity was also a new Max 8..."
    Yes, I got the picture.:) But VicNicSor the Russian is still confused.;)

    Some people seem to be confused by the phrase "a new MAX 8." To them, it might mean "a MAX 8 not previously mentioned here;" that is, a third MAX 8. It does not. It just means that the Lion Air MAX 8 had been manufactured recently; that is, it was a new airplane.
    Not only "a new MAX 8", but "in that calamity" also contributed to the confusion. Because if you mentioned A, and then mentioned B, now you talk about "that", the non-native speaker would think you refer to "the remote" A rather than "the nearby" B (and in the OP, "that" exactly refers back to B)."

    Definitely not me. Just in case, if you're referring to the last sentence in my #21, it was the reference of "that calamity" that was the issue, not "a new Max 8".
    I think I've got a crystal clear picture from the native speakers. Now let me try to explain this to you to see whether it will be of help (native speakers please monitor this and see whether I've missed some nuance):

    1) An Ethiopian plane crashed 2 days ago and in this crash/calamity, a new Max 8 is involved.
    (And this crash reminds some people of the Lion Air plane calamity===>>>>>>)
    2) A Lion Air plane crashed 4 months ago and in that crash/calamity, a new Max 8 is also involved.

    Now, can you see "that calamity" clearly refers back to the crash of the Lion Air plane rather than that of the Ethiopian plane?
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top