[Grammar] Lost, missing, lacking

[Ducklet Cat]

If I lose something, then the thing is lost not losing.


But when I miss a book, the the book is missing, not missed!

And If my body lacks vitamin A, then vitamin A is lacking! Shouldn't it be lacked?

Why is that?! :roll:

 

[5jj]

If I lose something, then the thing is lost not losing.

But when I miss a book, the the book is missing, not missed! NO

If you miss (=feel sad because you haven't got it any more) a book, the book is missed!

If you can't find the book, then it is missing (adjective).

 

[easybreakable]

to miss = to regret that a person or thing is not present.

lack = to not have or not have enough of something that is needed or wanted.

and your own examples represent the definitions very well.

 

[Ducklet Cat]

If you miss (=feel sad because you haven't got it any more) a book, the book is missed!

If you can't find the book, then it is missing (adjective).

I see. Thanks.
But isn't missed also an adjective?
I mean when I say:
I'm bored.
he's boring.

Aren't both bored and boring adjectives?

Thanks.

 

[Ducklet Cat]

to miss = to regret that a person or thing is not present.

lack = to not have or not have enough of something that is needed or wanted.

and your own examples represent the definitions very well.

I got why miss is different, because it has two meanings.

But I'm still not comfortable about "lack".
I think saying that "Vitamin A is lacked in one's body" is right.
Saying ""Vitamin A is lacking in one's body" also sounds right.
I'm confused. :-o

 

[5jj]

But isn't missed also an adjective?
The past participle of MISS can function as an adjective we can speak of a missed opportunity.

I mean when I say: I'm bored. he's boring. Aren't both bored and boring adjectives?

It's not always easy to say whether a structure is a participle or adjective in some short tenses when the verb is BE.

The journey is boring me. - verb, present progressive.
The journey is boring. - adjective.

I was bored by the whole affair. - verb, past simple passive.
I was bored. - adjective.

I think saying that "Vitamin A is lacked in one's body" is right.
We just don't say that.

Saying ""Vitamin A is lacking in one's body" also sounds right.
It is right.

I'm confused.
It just happens that LACK is not used in the passive.

 

[easybreakable]

I think saying that "Vitamin A is lacked in one's body" is right.
Saying ""Vitamin A is lacking in one's body" also sounds right.
I'm confused. :-o

"Vitamin A is lacked in one's body"---> True sentence.

""Vitamin A is lacking in one's body"---> ?
^ this is improper use of the verb "lack", simply because "Vitamin A " is the object, so the sentence in the active form must be "One's body is lacking vitamin A".

 

[5jj]

"Vitamin A is lacked in one's body"---> True sentence. NO. 'Lack' is not used in the passive.

""Vitamin A is lacking in one's body"---> ?
^ this is improper use of the verb "lack", simply because "Vitamin A " is the object, so the sentence in the active form must be "One's body is lacking vitamin A".

You may consider it improper, but the verb is sometimes used in this way. Vitamin A is the subject.

One's body lacks vitamin A is also possible.

 

[Ducklet Cat]

I see, thanks.
I guess some verbs are tricky, or maybe I'm thinking of the sentence is my own language and trying to translate it into English (subconsciously), and that's what is causing me to think that it "sounds" right.

Regards.

 

[birdeen's call]

I'm not sure whether grammarians call it passive but the sentence below is correct:

Manufacturing paint requires high levels of both technical expertise and financial resources lacked by many would-be competitors.

 

[5jj]

I'm not sure whether grammarians call it passive but the sentence below is correct:

Manufacturing paint requires high levels of both technical expertise and financial resources lacked by many would-be competitors.

Is it correct?

It's the first of only two citations for 'lacked by' in the Corpus of Contemporary American, which has no citations for 'is lacked' or 'was lacked'. The British National Corpus gives two for 'lacked by', one for 'is lacked' (and that one sounds very strange to me) and none for 'was lacked'.

Websters 3rd and the OED do not comment on usage, but neither provides any passive citations; The OED gives one citation for 'lacked' - my long lacked lord (1590), and labels it 'rare; W3 does not mention 'lacked'.

So, is it correct?

 

[birdeen's call]

Is it correct?

It's the first of only two citations for 'lacked by' in the Corpus of Contemporary American, which has no citations for 'is lacked' or 'was lacked'. The British National Corpus gives two for 'lacked by', one for 'is lacked' (and that one sounds very strange to me) and none for 'was lacked'.

Websters 3rd and the OED do not comment on usage, but neither provides any passive citations; The OED gives one citation for 'lacked' - my long lacked lord (1590), and labels it 'rare; W3 does not mention 'lacked'.

So, is it correct?

Well, I feel it is. It's syntactically fine, logical, convenient and easily understood. Also, I think it's not readily rephrasable (I think it's correct to use this word even if it's not in the dictionaries). I would have to use a subordinate clause to rephrase it, which would be longer and less convenient. My wording of the sentence would probably be the same.

Do you find this sentence wrong? Does it sound strange to you?

And do you think that a form must be used to be correct? I think this is what makes human languages different from animal ways of communication: the presence of a system that allows creating many forms, some of which may be rarely or never used.

In my opinion, the sentence proves the usefulness of the passive form "lacked".

 

[5jj]

1. Do you find this sentence wrong? Does it sound strange to you?

2. And do you think that a form must be used to be correct?
In my opinion, the sentence proves the usefulness of the passive form "lacked".

Different questions there.;-)

You may have noticed in other threads that I tend to avoid the words 'correct' and 'incorrect', preferreing 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable'

In talking about 'Vitamin A is lacked in one's body', I said, "we don't say that" - a view I still hold.
In talking about 'Vitamin A is lacking in one's body', I said, "You may consider it improper, but the verb is sometimes used in this way." I still think this.

If someone had asked me about 'Manufacturing paint requires high levels of both technical expertise and financial resources lacked by many would-be competitors', I might well have said, "Unusual, but it sounds OK to me". I simply questioned your bold asserion, with 'is' italicised for (I assume) emphasis, "the sentence below is correct". I still question it.

Also, I think it's not readily rephrasable [...]. I would have to use a subordinate clause to rephrase it, which would be longer and less convenient. [...] In my opinion, the sentence proves the usefulness of the passive form "lacked".

Manufacturing paint requires high levels of both technical expertise and financial resources, which many would-be competitors lack.
That is hardly longer or less convenient, BC.

I think it's correct to use this word even if it's not in the dictionaries)

I doubt if many people would get upset if you did, but I don't know about Cambridge or TOEFL examiners. I wouldn't advise examination candidates to use it.

And do you think that a form must be used to be correct?

I think that if a form appears to be ill-formed according to what is currently accepted, then more evidence of its use than two citations would be helpful in deciding to recommend it as acceptable. I know that's the answer one would expect of a politician, but I think it's appropriate here. Who are you (who am I?) to say that a form previously unused is 'correct' just because it's 'syntactically fine, logical, convenient and easily understood'?

 

[birdeen's call]

Different questions there.;-)

You may have noticed in other threads that I tend to avoid the words 'correct' and 'incorrect', preferreing 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable'

In talking about 'Vitamin A is lacked in one's body', I said, "we don't say that" - a view I still hold.
In talking about 'Vitamin A is lacking in one's body', I said, "You may consider it improper, but the verb is sometimes used in this way." I still think this.

I agree.

If someone had asked me about 'Manufacturing paint requires high levels of both technical expertise and financial resources lacked by many would-be competitors', I might well have said, "Unusual, but it sounds OK to me".

I think this together with the sentence's being syntactically fine, logical, convenient, easily understood and (I'm adding it now, I know) morphologically well-formed is absolutely enough to call the form correct. Of course, it's not enough that it sounds OK to us. I believe however that it would sound OK to most English speakers.

I simply questioned your bold asserion, with 'is' italicised for (I assume) emphasis, "the sentence below is correct". I still question it.

And I'm still not sure what your reason is. I understand that your argument is that it's rarely used. It doesn't look like a good argument to me.

Manufacturing paint requires high levels of both technical expertise and financial resources, which many would-be competitors lack.
That is hardly longer or less convenient, BC.

Right, it's not longer. I thought it had to be because it has a subordinate clause in it. I still find it less convenient but it's my personal view. I'm less certain that others would see it the same way now.

I think that if a form appears to be ill-formed according to what is currently accepted, then more evidence of its use than two citations would be helpful in deciding to recommend it as acceptable. I know that's the answer one would expect of a politician, but I think it's appropriate here. Who are you (who am I?) to say that a form previously unused is 'correct' just because it's 'syntactically fine, logical, convenient and easily understood'?

I don't understand the bolded phrase. I see "lacked" as well-formed. You're saying something about what is currently accepted. Do you have a good reason to say that "lacked" is not accepted?

I agree that it doesn't sound right in "Vitamin A is lacked in one's body." For some reason people don't like the word "lacked" there. I believe this is no longer true about my sentence. The word "lacked" sounds right to me in it. You said it sounded OK to you too. Where is the lack of acceptance then?

I believe previous usage has nothing to do with correctness (by any definition of it I can imagine). I am absolutely sure I have produced many correct sentences in my life that have naver been used before.

Afterthought: Well, previous usage may have something to do with correctness by some definitions. It may confirm that something is correct. I do not believe that lack of previous usage may be used as argument against correctness.

 

[5jj]

[FONT=&quot]

Of course, it's not enough that it sounds OK to us. I believe however that it would sound OK to most English speakers.

[/FONT]You may be right, but that is only a guess, as yet.

[FONT=&quot]

I don't understand the bolded phrase [ill-formed according to what is currently accepted]. I see "lacked" as well-formed. You're saying something about what is currently accepted. Do you have a good reason to say that "lacked" is not accepted?

‘Ill-formed was a badly chosen expression. I should have simply stuck to ‘unacceptable’. ‘Lacked’ itself is, of course, well-formed. [/FONT]

My reasons for thinking a use of ‘lack’ in the passive was currently unacceptable were:
1. I simply felt that sentences using ‘lack’ in the passive sounded unnatural to me;
2. Not sure whether this was my personal dislike of passive ‘lack’, I checked in my Oxford ALD and found the label: ‘no passive’.
3. I tried the Corpus of Contemporary American English, British National Corpus, Webster’s 3rd and the Oxford English Dictionary and found almost no evidence of ‘lack’ used in the passive.
[FONT=&quot]4. I came across this: Verbs which can't be used in the passive

I agree that it doesn't sound right in "Vitamin A is lacked in one's body." For some reason people don't like the word "lacked" there. I believe this is no longer true about my sentence. The word "lacked" sounds right to me in it. You said it sounded OK to you too. Where is the lack of acceptance then?

.
Acceptance by two members of this forum (even two such distinguished and erudite members as we two :-D) is not, I feel, sufficient justification for us to say unequivocally, “This is correct/acceptable”. And, even if your sentence is indeed universally accepted, we cannot claim that a full passive including BE is acceptable. You agree that ‘Vitamin A is lacked in one's body’ doesn’t sound right.

I believe previous usage has nothing to do with correctness (by any definition of it I can imagine). I am absolutely sure I have produced many correct sentences in my life that have never been used before.

.I am sure you have. I can do so now: “There is a drop of pink blancmange 27.5 centimetres to the right of that seven-legged spider". However, probably all of our original sentences followed established patterns. You would, I think, be unlikely to use modal ‘dare’ in an affirmative utterance; there is no logical reason not to – it’s simply that we don’t. Similarly, we seem not to use ‘lack’ in the passive.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Most speakers would not have used ‘like’ in a progressive (continuous) form before a certain hamburger chain popularised a slogan. The influence of mass advertising made an unacceptable form acceptable in a very short time.. Affirmative modal ‘dare’ and passive ‘lack’ appear not to be acceptable – today.[/FONT]

 

[birdeen's call]

My reasons for thinking a use of ‘lack’ in the passive was currently unacceptable were:
1. I simply felt that sentences using ‘lack’ in the passive sounded unnatural to me;

But, as you said, not all of them!

2. Not sure whether this was my personal dislike of passive ‘lack’, I checked in my Oxford ALD and found the label: ‘no passive’.

I will boldly say that I believe it may be lack of insight on their part. I will explain below. (However of course, it was insightful to notice that the problem exists.)

3. I tried the Corpus of Contemporary American English, British National Corpus, Webster’s 3rd and the Oxford English Dictionary and found almost no evidence of ‘lack’ used in the passive.

I think this is not a good argument. You're trying to support you're statement that passive "lacked" is not accepted. This point only says that it is not used. It isn't the same. Our problem is that we have a sentence that sounds pretty good (to us) but uses a form that is otherwise (the sense of this word may be a little vague) not accepted. We have no knowledge of other speakers' reaction to the sentence as for now so we can't be sure whether it can be called accepted. How often it's used could clear that up for us if it were used often. We could assume that forms that are widely used are also wiedly accepted. (This is of course disputable.) But I don't think we can assume the converse statement.

[FONT=&quot]4. I came across this: Verbs which can't be used in the passive
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
See my comment under number two.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Acceptance by two members of this forum (even two such distinguished and erudite members as we two :-D) is not, I feel, sufficient justification for us to say unequivocally, “This is correct/acceptable”. And, even if your sentence is indeed universally accepted, we cannot claim that a full passive including BE is acceptable. You agree that ‘Vitamin A is lacked in one's body’ doesn’t sound right.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

This made me think. I hope you agree that the fact that the sentence sounds right (right, we don't know) is interesting and needs explanation.

You say we do not say "be lacked". I agree. Why is that so? I think I have an idea. The passive is only used in certain situations. Many passive sentences sound very unnatural despite being grammatical because there is simply no reason (I'm not sure what the possible reasons are; you must know more about it) to use the passive sometimes. This is not caused by the verb itself. It's caused by the situation.

I will never say

The stars are seen by me.
[/FONT]
But it does not mean that "seen" is an unacceptable form.

It might be that "lack" has been unfortunate enough to be given a meaning which predestines it to be used almost exclusively in situations in which the use of the passive is unacceptable. It might be that we're dealing with a one-in-a-million situation in which it is not true. In other words, it might be a rare instance of a sentence in which the passive "lacked" is acceptable.

 

[birdeen's call]

One more thought.

The internet source you quoted says that "lacking" should be used instead of passive "lacked". I noticed that it's impossible in

Manufacturing paint requires high levels of both technical expertise and financial resources lacked by many would-be competitors.

"Lacking by" is clearly wrong. This and one more thing (which I may provide later, if I find the right words to express it) makes me think that the presence of the word "lacking" could be another reason for the fact that "lack" is not used in the passive. It seems to be preferred wherever it's possible to be used. We can't use it in our sentence which may make us more comfortable with "lacked".

I must admit I have a feeling that "be lacked" could be considered justified in some highly unlikely contexts. I'm yet to find one though... Generally, I feel that "lacked" could only be accepted when the one that lacks is somehow important.

 

[TheParser]

If I lose something, then the thing is lost not losing.


But when I miss a book, the the book is missing, not missed!

And If my body lacks vitamin A, then vitamin A is lacking! Shouldn't it be lacked?

Why is that?! :roll:

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


Ducklet Cat,


(1) I do not have anything to add to the excellent answers that

have already been given to you.

(2) I just wanted to emphasize that you should be very

careful in your use of "bored" and "boring."

(a) I am bored. = Something (a movie?) / someone (The

Parser?) bores me (makes me tired).

(b) I am boring. = I make other people feel bored!!!

Only a very honest person would admit that s/he is boring!!!

***** NOT A TEACHER *****

 

[5jj]

The internet source you quoted says that "lacking" should be used instead of passive "lacked". I noticed that it's impossible in

Manufacturing paint requires high levels of both technical expertise and financial resources lacked by many would-be competitors.

Manufacturing paint requires high levels of both technical expertise and financial resources lacking in many would-be competitors.

I think that sounds all right.

It would be helpful if others could join this thread, especially native speakers. The words I have italicised are in no way a reflection on your contributions, BC. You know that I have the greatest respect for your wise and helpful views on English. It's simply that I think this is a matter of feeling, and I'd like to know how other native speakers feel. I am beginning to wonder if I may be arguing a case that others would not.

 

[Jaskin]

hi,
Please note I'm not a teacher nor a native speaker;

Just for the clarity of discussion;
Both of you have used the term "passive" many times.
I have the impression that 5jj, for most time, is talking about the passive voice - we don't use the lack in passive voice.
Where in BC example it seems to me that the "lacked by" is past participle modifying noun phrase and serves more as post-positive adjective with some passive sense.

Could you please clarify it.

Cheers