awful at

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "awful at" is correct and commonly used in written English.
It is used to describe someone's lack of ability or skill at doing something, for example: "She's awful at public speaking".

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Academia

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

59 human-written examples

It isn't awful at first.

The New York Times

It is pretty awful at government.

The New York Times

You were always awful at estimating.

The New Yorker

Lukaku's first touch is awful at times.

The Telegraph

"It was awful at first," he said.

The New York Times - Health

I was really awful at auditions.

The Guardian

This is bloody awful at the moment.

The Guardian - Sport

"And he certainly looks rather awful at the moment".

The New Yorker

Far from it – they are all awful at it.

Independent

Zogby (JZ Analytics) is awful at internet polling.

The Guardian - Opinion

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

1 human-written examples

"Just an awful at-bat," Williams said yesterday.

The New York Times - Sports

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "awful at", ensure the context clearly specifies the activity or skill the subject is poor at. This avoids ambiguity and strengthens the sentence's clarity.

Common error

Avoid using "awful at" in highly formal or professional contexts. Opt for alternatives like "deficient in" or "lacking skill in" to maintain a more appropriate tone.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "awful at" functions as an adjective phrase modifying a noun, followed by a preposition. It describes a marked deficiency or lack of skill in a specific area or activity. As Ludwig AI confirms, it is used to describe someone's lack of ability.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

75%

Academia

12%

Science

7%

Less common in

Formal & Business

2%

Encyclopedias

1%

Reference

1%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "awful at" is a common and grammatically sound way to express a strong lack of competence in a specific skill or activity. As confirmed by Ludwig AI, it accurately describes deficiencies across a variety of contexts, particularly in News & Media. While versatile, writers should be mindful of the level of formality and opt for more professional alternatives in formal or business settings. When using "awful at", remember to specify the area of incompetence for maximum clarity. It’s a straightforward way to convey inadequacy, used frequently in various sources, making it essential for understanding English usage.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

terrible at

A direct synonym, expressing a similar degree of incompetence.

bad at

A more general term indicating a lack of proficiency.

poor at

Similar to "bad at", but can also imply a lack of quality.

inept at

Implies a clumsy or unskilled approach.

incompetent in

A more formal way of expressing a lack of ability.

deficient in

Highlights a lack of necessary skills or qualities.

weak in

Suggests a specific area of vulnerability or lack of strength.

lacking skill in

Directly states the absence of a particular skill.

struggling with

Implies difficulty and effort in a specific area.

not proficient in

A formal way to state a lack of expertise.

FAQs

How can I use "awful at" in a sentence?

You can use "awful at" to describe someone's lack of skill in a particular activity, such as "He's "awful at dancing"" or "They are "awful at keeping secrets"".

What can I say instead of "awful at"?

You can use alternatives like "terrible at", "bad at", or "poor at" depending on the context.

Which is correct, "awful at" or "awful in"?

"Awful at" is generally used when referring to skills or activities. "Awful in" might be used to describe someone's behavior or performance in a broader context, but "awful at" is more common for specific abilities.

What's the difference between "awful at" and "not good at"?

"Awful at" implies a stronger degree of incompetence than "not good at". "Not good at" is a more neutral way of saying someone lacks skill, while "awful at" suggests a significant deficiency.