for lack of

USAGE SUMMARY

"for lack of" is a correct, usable phrase in written English.
You can use it to indicate a deficiency or insufficiency, meaning that there is not enough of something. For example: "The project failed for lack of resources."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Formal & Business

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

Not for lack of trying.

The New York Times

This is not for lack of trying.

The Economist

It's not for lack of trying.

The New York Times

It isn't for lack of trying.

The New Yorker

It wasn't for lack of effort".

The New York Times - Sports

It was not for lack of opportunity.

The New York Times

That is not for lack of trying.

The New York Times

But not for lack of trying.

The New York Times

This isn't for lack of pressure.

The New Yorker

And not for lack of customers.

The New Yorker

It isn't for lack of goofiness.

The New Yorker

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Use "for lack of" to clearly indicate the reason for a failure or deficiency. It works well when explaining why something didn't happen or why a goal wasn't achieved.

Common error

While grammatically correct, "for lack of" can sound overly formal in casual conversations. Consider using simpler alternatives like "because there wasn't enough" or "since we didn't have" in informal settings.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "for lack of" functions as a prepositional phrase that modifies a verb or noun, indicating the reason or cause for a deficiency or absence. Ludwig AI confirms its correct usage in various contexts.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

68%

Formal & Business

15%

Science

17%

Less common in

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, "for lack of" is a versatile prepositional phrase used to indicate a deficiency or absence, often explaining the cause of a particular outcome. As Ludwig AI confirms, the phrase is grammatically correct and frequently used, although it leans towards a more formal register. Its usage is very common in news, business, and scientific writing, making it a valuable tool for clear and precise communication. When a less formal tone is desired, simpler alternatives such as "because there was no" or "without enough" may be more appropriate.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

absence of

A simpler and more direct way to state that something is not present.

for want of

An archaic alternative with the same core meaning, but less common in modern usage.

in the absence of

Similar in meaning, but often used to describe a conditional situation.

due to the absence of

Emphasizes the absence as the direct cause, offering a more formal tone.

without sufficient

Highlights that the amount of something is not adequate for a specific purpose.

because of insufficient

Focuses on the inadequacy of a particular resource or quality.

owing to a deficiency in

Highlights a specific shortcoming or inadequacy.

due to the scarcity of

Specifically points to a limited availability of something.

shortage of

Emphasizes the insufficient quantity of something.

lacking in

A more direct and concise way to express the absence of something.

FAQs

How can I use "for lack of" in a sentence?

Use "for lack of" to explain why something is missing or deficient. For example, "The project failed "for lack of" funding" means the project didn't succeed because it didn't have enough funding.

What's a simpler way to say "for lack of"?

You can use phrases like "because there was no", "due to a lack of", or "without enough" depending on the context.

Is "for lack of" formal or informal?

"For lack of" is generally considered more formal. In informal conversation, simpler alternatives like "because we didn't have" or "since there was no" might be more appropriate.

Can I use "due to lack of" instead of "for lack of"?

Yes, "due to lack of" is grammatically correct, but "for lack of" often provides a slightly more concise or impactful way of expressing the same idea.