poor of

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "poor of" is not correct in standard written English.
It is often used incorrectly in place of "poor in" or "lacking in." Example: "The community is poor in resources and support."

⚠ May contain grammatical issues

News & Media

Science

Encyclopedias

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

57 human-written examples

The poor, of course.

The New York Times

The poor of the world deserve better.

The Guardian

The poor of Paris are in revolt.

The New York Times

These are the standard views of the poor of Sderot.

The Guardian

These distant events seemed irrelevant to the poor of Britain.

The Guardian - Books

"But the poor of Egypt are really, really poor.

The Guardian

Punishing the poor, of course, won't help end poverty.

The Guardian - Opinion

Mr. Poor is survived by his wife, Edith Cowles Poor of Washington, DC, his brother Sheppard Poor of Rumson, NJ, his four sons, Lane Poor of Warren, RI, David Poor of Jenkintown, PA, Alfred Poor of Perkasie, PA, and Robert Poor of Boston, MA, and his two step-daughters, Nancy Greene of San Luis Obispo, CA, and Lila Greene of Paris, France.

The New York Times

In other words, do the stressed-out time-poor of the west have common cause with the actual dollar-a-day poor of the developing world?

The Guardian - Books

The poor of Malawi - 90% of the population are subsistence farmers - depend totally on maize.

The Guardian - Lifestyle

Peasants, fishermen and the working poor of the rural countryside could not afford it.

The New York Times - Arts

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Avoid using "poor of" in formal writing. Instead, use grammatically correct alternatives like "lacking in" or "deficient in" to ensure clarity and professionalism.

Common error

Many writers mistakenly use "poor of" when they mean "poor in". Remember that "poor in" describes a lack of something, while "poor of" is generally ungrammatical. Always double-check your preposition to ensure correct usage.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "poor of" functions incorrectly as a prepositional phrase attempting to indicate a lack or deficiency. Ludwig AI identifies it as grammatically incorrect. Correct usage would involve phrases like "lacking in" or "deficient in" to accurately convey the intended meaning.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

78%

Science

13%

Encyclopedias

3%

Less common in

Formal & Business

0%

Academia

0%

Wiki

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, while the phrase "poor of" appears frequently in writing, Ludwig AI identifies it as grammatically incorrect. The intended meaning of indicating a lack or deficiency is better conveyed through alternatives such as "lacking in" or "deficient in". Although the phrase appears in a variety of sources, including news and media outlets, it should be avoided in formal writing to maintain clarity and grammatical accuracy. Remember to use "poor in" when you mean to describe that something is not abundant. While the intention might be clear, correcting this error enhances the professionalism and credibility of your writing.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

lacking in

This phrase replaces "poor" with "lacking", offering a grammatically correct alternative for indicating a deficiency.

deficient in

Similar to "lacking in", this option uses "deficient" to denote an absence or shortage of something.

inadequate in

This phrase uses "inadequate" to express that something is not sufficient or good enough.

short on

Replaces "poor of" with a more casual, but grammatically correct, expression indicating a shortage.

without enough

This option conveys the idea of lacking a sufficient quantity of something.

in need of

Highlights the requirement for something that is lacking, focusing on the necessity.

wanting in

Uses "wanting" to indicate a deficiency, which is slightly more formal than "short on".

scarce in

Implies that something is rare or not readily available, indicating a deficiency in quantity or availability.

limited in

This phrase suggests that something exists but is restricted in quantity or extent.

under-resourced

This single word alternative refers to a lack of sufficient resources.

FAQs

Is "poor of" grammatically correct?

No, "poor of" is generally considered grammatically incorrect in standard English. It's often misused in place of phrases like "lacking in" or "deficient in".

What can I say instead of "poor of"?

Depending on the context, you can use phrases like "lacking in", "deficient in", "inadequate in", or "short on" to express a similar meaning in a grammatically correct way.

Which is correct, "poor of" or "poor in"?

"Poor in" is the correct phrase to use when describing a lack of something. "Poor of" is generally considered ungrammatical and should be avoided in formal writing.

How to correct the sentence using "poor of"?

Identify what is lacking and replace "poor of" with a suitable alternative. For example, instead of "The region is poor of resources", use "The region is lacking in resources" or "The region is deficient in resources".