Not enough to lose
Just finished watching today’s Jeopardy! Something Alex Trebek said at the very end puzzled me.
Going into Final Jeopardy, the third place contestant was basically out of the running. She got it wrong, and went down to near $0. Next up was the defending champion, who went in with around $8000. She too got the question wrong and dropped down to $6000. Then came the last contestant, who went in with (IIRC) $11500. He too got the question wrong, so it came down to his wager.
When it was revealed that his wager was (attempting to recall here…) $4999, Trebek said, “Not enough.”
My first reaction when he said that was, “huh?!” My next reaction was, “not enough to what?” Which, when answered, led me to wonder, “did he want the defending champion to win?” Because pretty much the only answer I can come up with to my first question is, “not enough to lose” (or maybe “not enough to let the defending champion win”). But to phrase it like that makes it seem like him losing is a goal that Trebek would like to see accomplished.
I realize that they opposing army has enough firepower to destroy us is fine, and it doesn’t indicate a desire to be destroyed. But consider two factors. First, there might well be something different about the abbreviated not enough. Like,
A: I fear they will overtake our city. How many soldiers to they have?
B: 1,000
A: Not enough.
Feel free to argue, but I think that sounds a little odd.
Second, even granting that the “to do X” need not always be something speaker desires, note that Trebek seems to empathize and take the POV of the contestant he’s dealing with. During the game he says, “sorry” and makes “aww” and “ouch”-type noises when the timing permits, and especially so during Final Jeopardy!* But it’s odd to use any variety of “not enough” when taking the POV of a contestant who is losing money.
I think, if I thought about it enough, I could come to understand that Trebek’s “not enough” was not any sort of indication of (quite temporary) bias, and that the grammar of English, properly thought through, wouldn’t in any way lead you to that conclusion. But darnit, it still seemed really weird.
Comments(3)
Well, my assumption on reading it was that he meant “not enough” to make a difference, or “not enough” to affect the outcome. Of course, I didn’t watch the episode, so I can’t make comment on his inflection.
That makes sense. I was probably reading too much into it, because Trebek tends to sympathize each competitor as he reveals their scores, or at least that’s how I feel. So it was rather objective, or non-contestant-oriented, to say that it wasn’t enough to change the outcome.
Somehow, I see this as a slip of the tongue that can be retrofitted to be understood. He obviously meant “not enough to lose,” but because of how that phrase is usually used, it’s at best an odd usage. Unless he said it particularly exuberantly, I would have double-taked, too.