Io ha probate a inviar iste message a Stan in un message private sed sin successo. Vole ben pardoner iste intrusion in le lista.


    ----- Forwarded Message -----
  From: Thomas Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
 To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> 
 Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 2:10 PM
 Subject: Mancar
   
Replying off list. Feel free to reply on list or off or not at all.
I'll grant you that the definition of mancar in IED could have been more clear. At this point, though, it's clear enough - to the point where it almost seems like you're *trying* to misread it.
The authors of the IED clearly thought that "to be lacking" was not clear enough - so they added "to be missing" and "to be deficient." Their intention is also hinted at in the fact that they list it as to *be* lacking - and not simply "to lack".
I suspect that they chose a form of "lack" to tie it in with "manco" - for which "lack" is probably the best gloss.
Another hint is that they don't specify "to be missing (something)" but rather "to be missing." There is a big difference, and this really is the key.
> Nonne, io manca de moneta.  Io manca. 
I seem to remember discussing your use of "nonne" in this manner. Mark that down as another Mulaikism.
"I am missing of money" "I am missing""I am deficient of money""I am deficient."
> Mais le definition non indica que es le subjecto de iste verbo.
It absolutely does. You're just not seeing it.
The fact that it it says to *be* deficient and to *be* lacking is a hint that it's not simply "to lack" but more of an adjective-like use of "deficient". Just about the only way to use deficient as an attribtutive adjective is in the way that means "insufficient". Couple this with the example of "to be missing" - and the only way for this to make sense is if the intention was for the subject of mancar to be the thing which is missing.
Couple this with the fact that just about every other Interlinguan in the world seems to have figured this out, that should be enough to encourage you to go back and re-read the definition the other way.
>  In anglese, si "I lack money",  'I' es le subjecto, le uno qui manca.
Very true, well, except for your misuse of "manca" above.
Consider, however, that "manca" does not mean "I lack" but "I am lacking" - and there's no object.
In English, if you say "I am lacking" - nobody would know what you're talking about.
> Isto non es le mesme como "It lacks money for him."  "It" es impersonal pronomine.
This tangent is probably a red herring since English doesn't have an explicit impersonal pronoun.

> "For him, money lacks."
[* is lacking/missing/insufficient]
Yes, and this is the correct situation to use mancar -- Pro ille, manca le pecunia.

>  "He lacks of good upbringing and manners,"
He is missing of good upbringing.Not a situation where you can use mancar with Ille as the subject.
> "He lacks in understanding German".
He is missing in understanding German.Another situation where ille can't be the subject.
> "Klingons lack empathy", (Klingons manca del empathia), o "Klingons are lacking in empathy".>  "Klingons" es le subjecto del verbo.  Tu non pote evitar iste facto.
Assuming that "tu" means "Thomas" here and not "one" or "people in general" - I absolutely avoid your conclusion. The IED doesn't allow you to translate "Klingons lack" as "Klingons manca" - unless you're trying to say that the klingons are missing.
>> And it’s not so much a question of transitive or intransitive,>>  but of what the word means.>> The subject of the verb “mancar” is the thing that is missing.>> Ubi dice isto in le definition?  Que es le subjecto del verbo?
For starters, it's in the definition of "to be missing" when used without an object.
> Usar le verbo in anglese in un tal maniera que> le moneta es le subjecto del verbo.
I could make up an example, or I could use one from dictionary.com:
"Three votes are lacking to make a decision."
Considering that my explanation is compatible with what the IED says and with how people use the verb, and also considering that your explanation is incompatible with examples using "to be missing" as specified in IED, I have come to the conclusion that you're mistaken here.
Thomas
P.S.  It's interesting to note that of the two definitions that Dictionary.com lists for "deficient" - the first is simply "lacking" - if we reject that as circular (lacking as in deficient which means lacking), that leaves the second definition -- which is basically "insufficient" -- a word used to describe the thing missing (insufficient funds).


--
Pro leger le archivos e pro modificar o cancellar le subscription:
http://listserv.icors.org/archives/interlng.html