Thomas e alteres,

Que io comencia al initio:  Circa dece annos de retro io usava
'mancar' in le maniera del anglese (in su usage predominante)
como un verbo transitive:  Io manca moneta.  Le automobile manca
gasolina. Le mundo manca interlingua.  (Io ancora vide iste  usage
sovente in altere scriptores)

Alora alcuno me criticava pro usar lo transitivemente con un objecto
directe del verbo.  "Le mundo manca interlingua".  Le mundo es le
subjecto e 'interlingua' es le objecto del verbo.

Isto non es interlingua, diceva alcuno.  Le verbo es INTRANSITIVE!

Assi io videva que in francese on pote dicer "Le monde manque de
interlingua." (Io non sape como scriber le francese; assi non 
comencia un altere serie de innuendos super mi incapacitate como
un interlinguista).   Le insertion de 'de' pois 'manca' inter 'monde' 
e 'interlingua' indica que le verbo non ager directemente super le 
objecto del preposition, assi, in aquelle caso, le verbo es intransitive, 
al minus in anglese isto es le caso, ben que le francese describe isto
uso como 'transitive', que non le minus non ha un objecto directe.
Si le verbo non ha un objecto directe, illo es intransitive. Le
manco es un stato del subjecto, e le specific natura del manco es
indicate per le phrase prepositional "de interlingua".

In scriber mi libro "Interlingua grammar and method" io criticava
le anglese (e alcun germanicos (teudescos)) in usar 'mancar' in un
maniera transitive.  Io recommendava que uno scribe 'le mundo
manca DE interlingua'.  Isto face le verbo intransitive, que vole
dicer que le subjecto, le mundo, es in un stato de manco (que es
un general parola abstracte describente le subjecto) e le objecto
del preposition face specific lo que manca al mundo. 

In nostre discussion currente de isto, que esseva stimulate per
alcuno qui exprimeva le innuendo que io esseva chronicamente in
error... in quasi tote cosas:

>Un error incessante es le uso mal de "mancar".  Simplemente: lo que manca
>(i.e., le subjecto de "mancar") es lo que non es presente. Pro un
>anglophono: "mancar" means "to be missing"; the subject of "mancar" is that
>which is missing.

Mais le subjecto del verbo non semper es lo que manca.

Ora, iste un vide cosas alquanto myopicamente, proque ille non 
consulta le linguas fontal e lor usage.

Le linguas fontal monstra duo usos de 'mancar'. E illos occurre in tres
variantes, anglese, francese, e italiano. 

Le prime uso es lo que tote de vos vole: Le subjecto del verbo es lo que manca.
"Interlingua manca al mundo".  "Le moneta manca al homine". "Il manca moneta al
homine". ('Il" es le pronomine impersonal como subjecto de un verbo). 

Le secunde uso es equalmente intransitive, mais es le methodo que io
usava in mi libro:

"Le mundo manca de interlingua".  "Le homine manca del moneta".

Ambe expressiones es intransitive.

Usage in linguas fontal:

Francese intransitive:  "Ce produit manque en magasin." (Iste producto manca in le 
magazin).   "Les mots me manquent pour en parler". (Le parolas me manca pro parlar 
de illo.)

Francese 'transitive indirecte': MANQUER DE  "Le sauce manque de sel". "Pays qui
manque de bras." "Pais que manca de bracio" (poter). 

==

Italiano: intransitive:  "nella città assediata mancava il pane" (In le citate
assediate mancava le pan: le pan mancava in le citate assediate). "mi manca un dente"
Un dente a me manca.

Italiano: Essere privo di q.c.:   "Gli manca di coraggio" (Ille manca de corage).
"Li città manca di risorse" (Le citate manca de resources). Li città assediata
manca di pane
 
==

Anglese intransitive (rar):  "Arms are lacking for the soldiers fighting IS"
(Le armas manca pro le soldatos lucante contra IS).  "Bread is lacking in the
besieged city". (Le pan manca in le citate assediate). 

Anglese intransitive indirecte:  'Le soldatos lucante contra IS manca de armas".
The sauce is lacking in salt:  Le sauce manca de sal.  
"Her fiancé is lacking in manners". 'Su fidantiate manca de bon manieras'

Anglese transitive: The sauce lacks salt. "*Le sauce manca sal" (mal forma)
The world lacks interlingua. (Le mundo manca de interlingua).
Interlingua non ha un transitive forma de 'mancar'.
 
 
----- Original Message -----
> 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.

E tu non ha Thomasismos?  Remarcabile!

Vide le IED a 'nonne' e [nonne]. Illo es un particula interrogative.
Mais a cata interrogative, il ha un echo negative: nonne? nonne!

> "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.

No, you are not seeing both alternative ways of expressing being lacking:
The one who lacks and the thing that lacks.

I am not arguing that you must give up the way you use 'mancar'.  I am
saying there is ALSO another way that is also legitimate.

> 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.

But in English because of the transitive case, "He lacks money", He is
the subject and he lacks, and what he lacks is money. 
So, it is important to help anglos to make the expressions intransitive,
but still leave the subject as the one who lacks.  He lacks of/in money.

> 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.

While you wait for me to go back and reread the definition again, suppose
you look up in your French dictionary (in French) and Italian dictionary
(in Italian) how they use their variants of 'mancar'.  This is not
exclusively a prototype situation but a grammatical one.

> In English, if you say "I am lacking" - nobody would know what you're
> talking about. 

But they would then ask you,"What is it you are lacking?"  They still
see the subject, YOU, as the one who is lacking something.


But we can talk grammatically about the one who lacks as the subject.

> > 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.

Nonne! "It is raining". "It is hot". "It seems that ...."  


> > "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.

Si, mais Klingones manca DE empathia.


> >> 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

The problem is, Thomas, I can see your way of expressing 'mancar' and regard
it as correct while you can't see how several languages leave the subject
as the one who/which lacks (of) whatever alongside your favored expression.
And further we interlinguaists can do the same.

The irony for me  is that most of you can get all bent out of shape when
I express things in a certain way that you think is wrong, but when I
want to point out some things in the IED as wrong by being inconsistent with
the methods described in its Introduction, you climb all over me.
We haven't done the way you say for 50 years!

Time still doesn't matter, because what matters is what the authorities in
governments, in schools, will want, and if you are not true to your principles
because you never knew what they were, they are going to throw it back
in your face.  Read the Introduction to the IED and understand it.  
Interlingua has become too Occidentalized. Interlingua is not an Occidental.

Cordially, and with exasperation,

Stan Mulaik


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