lost of

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "lost of" is not correct in written English.
It seems to be a typographical error or a misphrasing of "loss of." Example: "The loss of a loved one can be incredibly difficult to cope with."

⚠ May contain grammatical issues

Science

News & Media

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

59 human-written examples

This results in lost of contrast which leads to lost of details.

EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing

The Mets lost, of course.

The New York Times

All, though, had lost of late.

The New York Times - Sports

"Hybridising can cause a lost of biodiversity.

Independent

He lost, of course.

The Guardian - Sport

They lost, of course.

The Guardian

Eight patients were lost of follow-up.

European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology

Other players lost, of course.

The Guardian - Sport

Ice can prevent marine operations and lead to lost of time and therefore lost of money.

Ocean Engineering

All is not lost, of course.

The Guardian - Opinion

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

1 human-written examples

I lost ⅔ of my body weight in six months.

Huffington Post

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Always use "loss of" instead of "lost of". "Lost of" is a common misspelling and is considered grammatically incorrect.

Common error

Avoid confusing the noun "loss" (the act of losing something) with the past participle of the verb "lose" (lost). Use "loss of" to indicate a deprivation or absence.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "lost of" is typically intended to function as a determiner + noun phrase, similar to "loss of", indicating a deprivation or absence. However, this form is grammatically incorrect. Ludwig highlights this issue.

Expression frequency: Rare

Frequent in

Science

50%

News & Media

50%

Formal & Business

0%

Less common in

Academia

0%

Encyclopedias

0%

Wiki

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "lost of" is generally considered a grammatical error and should be replaced with "loss of". As Ludwig AI points out, the correct usage indicates the absence or deprivation of something. While examples exist across various sources, it's essential to use "loss of" in formal and informal writing to maintain clarity and grammatical correctness. Common contexts where this error occurs are in science and news media. Remember to avoid confusing the past participle "lost" with the noun "loss".

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

loss of

Corrects the grammatical error while retaining the intended meaning of losing something.

absence of

Indicates the lack of something, similar to experiencing a loss.

lack of

Expresses the deficiency of something, implying something is missing.

deprivation of

Emphasizes the act of being denied something, indicating a loss.

shortage of

Highlights the insufficient quantity of something, reflecting a lack.

want of

Indicates a need or deficiency of something, similar to a loss.

reduction in

Suggests a decrease in something, reflecting a loss of quantity or quality.

decline in

Indicates a downward trend in something, suggesting a loss of value or status.

erosion of

Implies a gradual loss or weakening of something over time.

disappearance of

Expresses the complete vanishing or loss of something.

FAQs

What is the correct way to use "loss of" in a sentence?

Use "loss of" to indicate the absence or deprivation of something. For example, "The "loss of confidence" affected the team's performance."

Is "lost of" ever correct to use?

No, "lost of" is generally considered grammatically incorrect. The correct phrase to use is "loss of".

What are some synonyms for "loss of"?

Synonyms for "loss of" include "absence of", "lack of", and "deprivation of", depending on the specific context.

How does "loss of" differ from "lack of"?

While both indicate an absence, "loss of" often implies something was once present but is now gone, whereas "lack of" simply indicates that something is missing or insufficient.