Can we say A is a shortage of B, because A lacks B??

Question

Can we say A is a shortage of B, because A lacks B, as in the sentence "economics is a science with excellent tools for gaining answers but a serious shortage of interesting questions"?

(I think it's not proper according to our language habbit. To us "is a" means "equals". What's your opinion?)

Marius Hancu · Accepted Answer

>To us "is a" means "equals"

IMO, in any language in the world, that's just one of the meanings, the mathematical one.

The sentence is correct.

Garnett · Answer

MapleCan we say A is a shortage of B, because A lacks B, as in the sentence "economics is a science with excellent tools for gaining answers but a serious shortage of interesting questions"?

(I think it's not proper according to our language habbit. To us "is a" means "equals". What's your opinion?)

You can't say "A is a shortage of B" if A lacks B, but that is alright, because you haven't said that here.

You have said "A is an X with a shortage of B" which is fine.

Personally I think the sentence could be nbalanced, and could lead to confusion, even though it's unlikely.

As it stands the excellent tools could gain "answers" and also "a serious shortage of interesting questions".

If I were you I would add a second "with".

"economics is a science with excellent tools for gaining answers but with a serious shortage of interesting questions".

I think this shows where the balance is. What do other people think?

Nona the brit · Answer

It think the sentence is better with the extra 'with' but it was ok before.

The meaning isn't 'A is a shortage of B, because A lacks B' however. You are saying A is B, and A also lacks C.

Maple · Answer

Hmm, it seems I've misread it.

And now I also think the sentence is better with an extra "with" but without it is also ok.

Thank you guys![C]

Maple · Answer

GarnettYou can't say "A is a shortage of B" if A lacks B, .....

Hi!

That's one of the sources of my orginal doubt. Thanks for your comments, though I'd misread the sentence.

Garnett · Answer

Maple
GarnettYou can't say "A is a shortage of B" if A lacks B, .....

Hi!

That's one of the sources of my orginal doubt. Thanks for your comments, though I'd misread the sentence.

I'm glad you got it sorted out.

I meant to mention before: if you did want to use "shortage" in a sentence to say "A lacks B", you would say

"A suffers from a shortage of B".

Maple · Answer

Thank you again<img class='emoticon' style='Width:19px;Height:19px;' data-delaysrc='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' src='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' alt='Emotion: smile'/>

Goodman · Answer

MapleCan we say A is a shortage of B, because A lacks B, as in the sentence "economics is a science with excellent tools for gaining answers but a serious shortage of interesting questions"?

(I think it's not proper according to our language habbit. To us "is a" means "equals". What's your opinion?)

Can we say A is a shortage of B, because A lacks B, as in the sentence "economics is a science with excellent tools for gaining answers but a serious shortage of interesting questions"?

Wow! I never thought of English equations this way. Um…let me see if I understand this. The way “shortage” and “lack” were used really got me!

If B=10 and A, based on this concept is less than 10. Then B = A –(the lacking component).

In English terms: A is lacking a few units from the total unit of B, or A has a shortage in the number of unit in relationship to the total units contained in B.

Does anyone disagree?

Inchoateknowledge · Answer

A is a shortage of B, because A lacks B.

A and B are sets and not two numbers. Otherwise the sentence is a nonsense at first sight.

A is a shortage of B means A is a subset of B: all elements in A are elements of B, but there is at least one element of B that is not elements of A.

A lacks B means there is no element of A that is elements of B.

Contradictione:

The first clause means all elements in A are elements of B, however, from the second we can infer that there is no element of A that is elements of B.

The reason clause, because A lacks B, is a ***-steer.

The sentence is incoherent.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Goodman · Answer

A is a shortage of B, because A lacks B.

First, I'd like to hear if you agree this is a statement that makes sense? To me, I have a little reservation and so I was just trying to justify the statement by translating it into something I think may make sense in English terms. It didn’t appeal to me in the sense that I’ve never heard people expressing it this way.

By definition, a lack of something = a shortage of something. But when this something is represented by a comparison, then the entities being compared can only have two outcomes; 1) equal and 2) unequal. By deductive reasoning, then, my statement may make sense. This discussion may cross the boundaries of basic English. Nonetheless, I’ve found it intriguing.

Can we say A is a shortage of B, because A lacks B??

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions