Sophie:
The following is a direct quotation from the Cambridge International
Dictionary of English
<http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=lest*1+0>:
lest / conjunction / LITERARY
in order to prevent any possibility that (something will
happen)
They were afraid to complain about the noise lest they annoyed the
people next door.
Lest you think the film is too violent, I must assure you that it
is not.
That online dictionary didn't show an entry for "in
case," but here's one from Merriam-Webster Collegiate
Dictionary
<http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=in+case>:
in case
Function:
conjunction
Date: 14th
century
1 :
IF <in case we are surprised, keep by me -- Washington
Irving>
2 : as a
precaution against the event that <carries a gun in case he is
attacked>
In other words:
"X lest Y" means "X so that not Y"
"X in case Y" means "X because maybe
Y"
In still other words:
A "lest" sentence tells what you do so that something bad
doesn't happen.
An "in case" sentence tells what you do as a precaution in the
event that something bad actually does happen.
This being my third posting in 24 hours, I would like to leave any
further discussion on this topic to others.
Dick Veit
At 09:04 PM 07/14/2001, Sophie wrote:
Dick, how do you come at a
distinction in meaning between `lest' and `in
case'? I cannot find any lexicographic ground to support it. Both of
these
logical operators hypothesise an event: neither presumes its
inevitability
or the circumstance of its prevention. That is precisely why they
head
subjunctive-mood sequences. Your paraphrasing:
D, (lest): Because I want to make sure I don't slip and fall, I
will hold
on to the hand rail
has turned 'lest' into a causal logical operator and thereby diverted
the
sense the subjunctive is in place to achieve.
The semantic template to represent the subjunctive mood of the
sentence
under scrutiny is this:
`I hold on to the rail and [I hypothesise the possibility that] I slip
and
fall'.
It cannot possibly be `I hold on to the rail therefore I will not (or:
in
order that I do not) slip and fall. If this were a possibility then
the
lest/just in case headers, natural headers of subjunctive-mood
sequences,
would simply not be in use.
Sophie
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Veit, UNCW English Department <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: "in case" and "lest S should"
> At 12:32 AM 07/14/2001, Sophie Johnson wrote:
> >... Indeed, `lest' and `just in case' are synonymous
expressions. So you
> >are right: both C and D correctly fill the gap in the exam
sentence. And
> >you are also right in that `lest' is archaic. On that basis, C
would have
> >been the better answer.
>
> I must disagree with Sophie. "Lest" and "just in
case" are not synonymous.
> "Lest" means "to prevent X from taking place."
"Just in case" means "in
the
> event that X should actually take place." Very different. I
agree that
both
> C and D could be said, but D seems the more likely answer. Here
are
> equivalent statements (not exact paraphrases by any means):
>
> C. (just in case): When I slip and fall, I want to be holding
on to the
> hand rail.
> D, (lest): Because I want to make sure I don't slip and fall,
I will hold
> on to the hand rail.
>
> Dick Veit