Comments on: Not enough to lose

By: chocolatepie

chocolatepie — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:52:47 +0000

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.

By: Russell

Russell — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 02:40:49 +0000

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.

By: Jaren L

Jaren L — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:56:40 +0000

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.