Be good enough for

[canadalynx]

Hello.

I know the expression 'be good enough for something/someone'.
Do you think 'be enough for' is incorrect? Is it not understandable that it is a variation of the expression?
In the film "Crazy Rich Asian (2018)", there is a scene where Michelle Yeoh says "You will never be enough."
Is it deemed acceptable because

a) it is used in speaking?
b) it is used in direct speech to a person/entity.
c) there is no 'for' after the phrase in the sentence.
d) it is Singaporean English?
e) it has a different meaning?
f) it has 'will never'

Someone corrected this text : She will never be good enough for his family.

 

[GoesStation]

The answer to all your questions is "no": the phrase is "acceptable" because it's natural international English. Nothing is missing. The speaker thinks the subject will always lack qualities that would be essential to make her satisfactory to a group of people that context has established.

The proposed version may express what the speaker meant. It's not a correction, though, because the sentence is already correct.

 

[canadalynx]

I understand perfectly what the speaker meant.

Is there something wrong with the following sentence? If it is not, I don’t understand why someone had to correct it.

She will never be enough for his family.

 

[GoesStation]

I understand perfectly what the speaker meant.

Is there something wrong with the following sentence? If it is not, I don’t understand why someone had to correct it.

She will never be enough for his family.

Please re-read my post immediately above yours.

 

[canadalynx]

Alright. :-D

Confirmation obtained with no additional information.

Thank you.

 

[jutfrank]

Who corrected it? Why?

It isn't usually necessary to correct native speech. The line in question comes from a film script, written by a native speaker, and possibly checked and edited by a whole team of other native speakers, so why would anyone think it needs correcting?

In terms of meaning, it isn't at all clear to me from the context that 'be enough' means 'be good enough', but I'll take your word for it. And if you're right, I don't think you ought to see one as a 'variation' of the other.

 

[canadalynx]

Who corrected it? Why?

It isn't usually necessary to correct native speech. The line in question comes from a film script, written by a native speaker, and possibly checked and edited by a whole team of other native speakers, so why would anyone think it needs correcting?

In terms of meaning, it isn't at all clear to me from the context that 'be enough' means 'be good enough', but I'll take your word for it. And if you're right, I don't think you ought to see one as a 'variation' of the other.

Another native speaker corrected or proposed that sentence.
The salient point of the post is to discuss the correctness and the acceptance of the expression ‘be enough for’. The film is just a reference. I wasn’t second guessing the film script due to the setting of the story and Singaporean English.
I just wanted to know if ‘be enough for’ in that sense has to be written as ‘be GOOD enough for’ at all times.
I didn’t really think about it until someone put ‘good’ in the sentence ‘She will never be (good) enough for his family’.

 

[emsr2d2]

"never be enough for" doesn't always indicate "never be good enough for".

 

[canadalynx]

"never be enough for" doesn't always indicate "never be good enough for".

Yes, I agree. It depends on the context.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

. . . I just wanted to know if ‘be enough for’ in that sense has to be written as ‘be GOOD enough for’ at all times. . . .

They're both natural but mean different things. It's not a matter of context. They are simply not interchangeable. One is qualitative, one is quantitative.

This is a minor point. Regardless of the phrasing, it's clear that Mom wants a rich daughter-in-law.