Meaning of "lack"

[Maciamo]

I have always used the word "lack" in English to mean "insufficience" or "deficiency". But yesterday CC1 and MarsMan (two of the people who most often misunderstand what I write), mentioned in my thread Japan's lack of seasons and biodiversity that "lack" usually mean for them "absence" or "inexistence", so that my title clearly meant that Japan had no seasons, while my intention was to say that they were not clear-cut enough, or not balanced enough (too long Summer, too short Spring, Autumn and Winter).

I use the word "lack" (or "to lack") as a translation for the French "manque" (or "manquer"), which only means "not being enough", "being deficient". In both French and English, I would use the words "lack" and "manque" to mean absence only when I say "complete lack" or "utter lack" (manque complet).

After checking the examples in the dictionary, I still feel that my usage of "lack" is correct. A "lack of money" means not having enough money, not being completely broke or indebted. A "lack of skills", means not having high skills enough in something, NOT having no skill at all.

Please let me know who you think is right and what is the most common meaning of "lack" for you.

Thanks.

[DoctorP]

You are kidding right? I provided you definitions of the word before. The word lack by itself was not in question...it was the use of "lack of" ...in case you don't remember.

[DoctorP]

Noun
* S: (n) lack, deficiency, want (the state of needing something that is absent or unavailable) "there is a serious lack of insight into the problem"; "water is the critical deficiency in desert regions"; "for want of a nail the shoe was lost"
Verb
* S: (v) miss, lack (be without) "This soup lacks salt"; "There is something missing in my jewellery box!"

Don't take my posting in this thread too personal...it is not an attack on you. (I know you get your feelings hurt easily)

I too am merely seeking clarification.

My vote for either equally shows my idea that it depends upon how the word is used within the sentence. You can not go by intent, but must rather go by how it is actually used.

[Mars Man]

Interesting thread. I do feel that perhaps the idea is a good one here.

My vote was for either. As touched on already, the prepositions that follow verbs in those phrasal verbs can make a difference in extent or degree, quality or quantity, causative linkings or non-causative linkings. Also, of course, context has influence on how things are taken as well.

As far as any given quantity of a fixed nature goes, to say that the fixed quantity is lacking is equivalent to saying that the given quantity is not. If there are to be four things understood as being a possible defined set, to say that set in which those four things should be the given quantity lacks, is to say that there are less than four--there are not four.

Within the context of a single sentence in which that clause can be seen as the independent portion of the sentence, the elipsed dependent section can be understood in the light of 'carry over'. Though the concept in the mind of the source may be focused on a lesser degree of quality--which stipulates a comparative function--the recipient can understand the state of quality from which the comparison had been likely intended to be not in that which had be expressly stated. To say that a given set A lacks a given set B, can be seen to equate the essence of the statement that set A does not have set B.

Another point, if I may, could be made to show how context works. You are correct in your examples given at the bottom of you post, Maciamo san, and I will take one and apply it here:

A lack of money is a general statement, and so as you have paraphrased it, presents the idea of a comparatively lesser quantity. However, to say I lack the money, as I think you know, presents the idea of not having a given quantity--even being unidentified. In other words, the given quantity to be possessed is not.

In my post on that thread, I think you'll notice that I clearly presented the idea of comparison for the later clause of that title. The first clause, as pointed out there (but perhaps not so clearly [I aplogize for that]) and here, stands, I firmly reason. I think it is nice that you have pointed out the matter here.

[nice gaijin]

Regardless of whatever definition we prefer to cling to, it is how others understand our words that matters most in communication. Reading Maciamo's explanation of his intended message, I can see his logic, but the first time I read the title of the thread in question, I took it the same way as the others.

[Maciamo]

So there is no verb in English that means only or usually "not being enough", like the verb "manquer" in French ? I should add this to my list of missing words in English. It is my first commonly used verb in the list (the others are mostly nouns).

[Mars Man]

Originally Posted by Maciamo

So there is no verb in English that means only or usually "not being enough", like the verb "manquer" in French ?

Good question. My better dictionary (Webster's New World, second college edition; 1976) gives the English lack as coming from the Middle English lac which it offers as being akin to the Middle Lower German lak. It gives the explanation about the verb's implication of absence or insufficiency, and the verbs want (mostly British) and need as stressing the urgency to supply what is absent or not enough.

As far as I know, there is no commonly used verb for that state--which leads to another matter. It is more logical and scientific to understand that as a state rather than an act. Now for any language, such as the French you have pointed out, to have a verb for that state, I'd say that that's very artistical in nature, very emotional, and as such good and fine. It is, nevertheless, a state, and to 'verb' it clearly, the verb of state, be or it's next best, occasionally almost active verb of state have are most clear.

It is not enough. They do not have enough. Hardly any room for being misconstrued here.

[Tomii515]

Well, if you said that to me, I would think you were saying how there weren't a lot of season.... I really don't know what I would say, because I really wouldn't need to say that... Umm, maybe I'd say "Japan's lack of season length and biodiversity." Well, I don't know if you all are from the country on your profile, or if you moved there from the USA, but I live in the USA, and I'm a native English speaker, so yeah...

[asforoneday]

A word that means "not enough" is "insufficient".

in‧suf‧fi‧cient  /ˌɪnsəˈfɪʃənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-suh-fish-uhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. not sufficient; lacking in what is necessary or required: an insufficient answer.
2. deficient in force, quality, or amount; inadequate: insufficient protection.



there are some other words as well: bereft (lacking), deficient (inadequate), inadequate (not enough), but insufficient is the best.

[Gaijin4Life]

uhhhh www.dictionary.com?

[Maciamo]

I can use a dictionary as well as anyone. What I want to know is which of the dictionary's defintition is the most common for YOU. Thanks. Of course, if you are not a native speaker of English, no need to post in this thread or vote at the poll.

[DoctorP]

Originally Posted by Maciamo

Of course, if you are not a native speaker of English, no need to post in this thread or vote at the poll.

Then should your vote count?

[alt]

Originally Posted by CC1

Then should your vote count?

CC1 you mean Maciamo is not a "native" English speaker?

[Mikawa Ossan]

Maciamo is not a native speaker, no, although he does have a decent command of the language.

[DoctorP]

Originally Posted by Mikawa Ossan

Maciamo is not a native speaker, no, although he does have a decent command of the language.

He has a good knowledge of the language yes...command of it?...no, but he discounted his own vote by making that post.

[Mikawa Ossan]

Originally Posted by CC1

He has a good knowledge of the language yes...command of it?...no, but he discounted his own vote by making that post.

I would say that he has a "decent command" of the English language, although we might mean different things by that terminology. I say he has a "decent command" because he seems to be quite capable of getting across what he wants to say in the English language. I think that most of the problems he finds like the one leading to this thread come from certain personality traits rather than a lack of understanding of the English language, but that's another topic altogether.



I'll shut up now while I'm still ahead.....

[Mars Man]

Originally Posted by Mikawa Ossan

I'll shut up now while I'm still ahead.....

Good move there!!

[Steve Ototo]

Konbanwa. I am a native English speaker, and I am not fluent in any other language, so all that I know is American English.

Often, people will say, "..Japan's RELATIVE lack of seasons and biodiversity..." using the word "relative" to avoid the impression that "...Japan is devoid of seasons and biodiversity..." This last sentence implies an ABSOLUTE lack. You could also say "Japan's absolute lack" instead of "Japan is devoid of" to strongly imply that there is NO seasonality or biodiversity.

In American English arguments, one can reply "A RELATIVE lack, compared to what?" Then the original speaker can simply shrug her/his shoulders. There is no need to specify what comparison is made, when one uses the term "relative."

To say that "George Bush is relatively stupid," is a little less insulting than "George Bush is stupid."

"Absolute" and "relative" can be helpful friends when uncertain how strong one's message is.

[Steve Ototo]

Originally Posted by Maciamo

So there is no verb in English that means only or usually "not being enough", like the verb "manquer" in French ?

The verb "suffice" is slightly formal. It means that there is enough, as compared to a certain measure of adequacy.

It has a meaning that is slightly denigrating. "Is my English good?" "It will suffice." This means that it will achieve the goal desired, but does not imply any more than that. It hints at something that is barely adequate.

If something "does not suffice," it is not enough. "His attempts at English did not suffice to answer the question." This again is a bit formal and a bit insulting.

[Maciamo]

Originally Posted by Steve Ototo

The verb "suffice" is slightly formal. It means that there is enough, as compared to a certain measure of adequacy.
It has a meaning that is slightly denigrating. "Is my English good?" "It will suffice." This means that it will achieve the goal desired, but does not imply any more than that. It hints at something that is barely adequate.
If something "does not suffice," it is not enough. "His attempts at English did not suffice to answer the question." This again is a bit formal and a bit insulting.

Suffice come from French "suffir". It doesn't help me as you cannot say "Japan doesn't suffice seasons". It doesn't mean anything.

[DoctorP]

You didn't answer the above question!

[Reiku]

Meh, it's just another example of how bastardized American english has become.

The dictionary definitions for words often vary from how they are commonly used. In my experience, most people don't speak english by combining words so much as by combining phrases--so a lot of common mistakes get perpetuated until they are considered "correct".

With the word "lack", it is most likely a case of gradual abbreviation:

The phrase "A complete lack" is used over and over, until the people using it fail to understand the grammar involved and shorten it to "a lack", this is then repeated again and again, until when most people hear the word "lack" they take it to mean "not any" as opposed to "not enough".

It's similar to the word "can't". While "can't" actually means being totally incapable, most people use it more causually to mean things like "not allowed to". IE: "I can't turn left here, that's a one-way street." as opposed to "I can't walk, my legs are broken."

It's not so much a failing on language's part, but rather on the part of the people who speak it.

[Maciamo]

Originally Posted by Reiku

With the word "lack", it is most likely a case of gradual abbreviation:
The phrase "A complete lack" is used over and over, until the people using it fail to understand the grammar involved and shorten it to "a lack", this is then repeated again and again, until when most people hear the word "lack" they take it to mean "not any" as opposed to "not enough".
...
It's not so much a failing on language's part, but rather on the part of the people who speak it.

Thank you. This is what I wanted to hear. In fact I knew the answer, having studied a bit of linguistics and the way languages evolve, but I wanted to test the knowledge of some of the "native English" forum members. This confirms my opinion that a good deal of Americans speak a corrupted version of English and have no clue about linguistics and etymology. Here we learn the roots of words since primary school (from 10 years old maybe) and the original meaning of each words, so as to be able to recognise corrupted meanings. Good dictionnaries normally give the etymology of the word. E.g. biology : from Greek 'bios' + 'logos' = 'life' + 'study'. I wonder what percentage of Americans can use an etymological dictionary.

Back to our topic, "lack" comes from Middle Dutch "lak" meaning "deficiency, fault". And for those who wonder "fault" comes from French "faute", which original meaning isn't "mistake" but "lack" or "deficiency" (both meanings exist in French, but French speakers normally know which one is the original one). It derives from Vulgar Latin "fallita", meaning "a shortcoming, falling".

[Steve Ototo]

Originally Posted by Maciamo

Thank you. This is what I wanted to hear. In fact I knew the answer, having studied a bit of linguistics and the way languages evolve, but I wanted to test the knowledge of some of the "native English" forum members. This confirms my opinion that a good deal of Americans speak a corrupted version of English and have no clue about linguistics and etymology. Here we learn the roots of words since primary school (from 10 years old maybe) and the original meaning of each words, so as to be able to recognise corrupted meanings. Good dictionnaries normally give the etymology of the word. E.g. biology : from Greek 'bios' + 'logos' = 'life' + 'study'. I wonder what percentage of Americans can use an etymological dictionary.
Back to our topic, "lack" comes from Middle Dutch "lak" meaning "deficiency, fault". And for those who wonder "fault" comes from French "faute", which original meaning isn't "mistake" but "lack" or "deficiency" (both meanings exist in French, but French speakers normally know which one is the original one). It derives from Vulgar Latin "fallita", meaning "a shortcoming, falling".

My apologies for my errors. English itself is perhaps a corrupted language from its beginnings as a Norman French overlay on Old English, a Saxon language with closest "pure" ties to Old and Modern Frisian, and with parallels to the Scandinavian languages. Speakers of the Germanic and Latinate languages are continually puzzled by modern English - it is a mix of the familiar and the foreign to them, being a blended language.

However one can consider it, I should take issue with the concept that English is "corrupted" (con + rumpo, broken through or pierced, Latin). There are no standards by which to measure English, a recently-evolved language. Even Chaucer's Middle English, a blend of Norman French and Old English, is nonstandard and foreign to many non-English-speakers; and the spelling of Shakespeare's time was nonstandard.

Having only the most inadequate exposure to linguistics and etymology, I think that you are holding English to a higher standard than it was ever intended to have. Languages such as Japanese and Latin have grown from fairly pure form and stock, slowly changing over time. English has changed, radically and continuously, in speech and form, including the great vowel shift of the 1500's when the Saxon vowel pronunciation was jettisoned for new forms.

I regret that there is no "Good English" to compare with our current "poor English." It has always been "poor."

My greatest apologies for the misunderstanding.

[Steve Ototo]

Originally Posted by Maciamo

Suffice come from French "suffir". It doesn't help me as you cannot say "Japan doesn't suffice seasons". It doesn't mean anything.

My apologies for being unhelpful. I shall add a reference to a far more skilled English speaker than I am, Robert Frost:

SOME say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

Robert Frost
Fire and Ice
(From Harper’s Magazine, December 1920.)


I have heard Robert Frost described as a poor poet, and I shall not defend his work here. But it does give an example of the use of the word 'suffice,' perhaps improperly.

Sorry.