There are multiple levels to the English language. You start with the literal meaning, discern the implied meaning and unearth the symbolic meaning. With so many English idioms and sayings, non-native speakers can sometimes struggle with understanding what someone is actually trying to say. One such example is the phrase “at a loss for words.”
If you can’t think of what you want to say, perhaps because you are dumbfounded or surprised by the situation, then it would be appropriate to say that you are at a loss for words. Alternatively, some people would prefer to say that they are lost for words.
You’ll notice that there is a subtle but important difference in that construction, just as you should know the difference between lose, loose and loss. These words carry similar definitions, but must be used in the right context at the right time.
You are at a loss for words, but you are lost for words. It would be incorrect to state that you are “at a lost for words” or that you are “loss for words.”
Being “at a loss for words” and being “lost for words” have equivalent meanings and, as far as I can tell, one is no more correct than the other. That being said, I am far more familiar with the former than the latter. Some have said that this may be related to the difference between American English and British English, though I’m not entirely sure that’s the case.
When you are surprised by some news (e.g., your wife tells you she’s pregnant), you could be at a loss for words. It would be equally appropriate to say that the news left you speechless or that you were dumbstruck. You might also say, “Words fail me.” More common in the UK than here in North America are the phrases “bereft of speech” and “bereft of words,” which also mean the same thing.
And then, of course, there is the grammatically incorrect Internet way of expressing the same astonishment and inability to find your words: I am out of word. Out of word, indeed.
As you know Michael, I am never at a loss for words.
It seems to me that “I am lost for words” is used by people who simply misremember, or are unable to logically parse, the traditional idiom, which is, “I am at a loss for words.”
The traditional idiom conveys that one’s stock or inventory of words is insufficient for the formulation of a well-matched response to a novel (and usually an unpleasantly novel) situation, event or statement.
It describes a status similar to that of a cashier who, upon opening their cash drawer, discovers that they are out of the necessary denominations in the necessary amounts to correctly make change for a payment tendered in a novel or unexpected form.
“I am lost for words” suggests an odd and awkward image by comparison, as if the speaker were blindfolded and unsure of whether it were indeed even a Word-Orchard at all in which they were stumbling around, grasping randomly, or without guidance, for something appropriate to say.
This is in part why I believe that people unexposed to the traditional idiom end up, as it were, coining for themselves, or merely settling for, a less-fitting though similar-sounding phrase, one perhaps misused in the same manner by others in their midst.
Similarly traditional idiomatic English uses of the preposition “at” add further support to the meaning and sense of “at a loss for.”
“At sixes and sevens,” “at a standstill,” “at odds,” “at loggerheads,” “at peace,” and many other examples use “at” in a manner which may feel strange to a learner of English as a secondary language.
Taking all this into account, I say that, rather than describing disorientation or lostness, the old idiom in question intentionally portrays the speaker as having *found themselves* sitting before a supply of words which does not include within immediate arm’s reach the verbal elements needed for construction of a timely, apropos response.
Thus the compact, efficient declaration of the shortage which the circumstance has exposed. The ersatz substitute phrase, in contrast, is awkward, far less clearly logical or expressive, and can boast only of its ability to sound similar to the rich & useful idiomatic original. It is a cheap substitute, arising, as do so many other unhelpful formulations, in the pattern of the shameless standard-bearer for them all, the pathetic and atrocious “for all intensive purposes.”