source in

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "source in" is not standard in written English and may cause confusion.
It is not commonly used, but if intended, it might refer to the origin or basis of something, though it would typically require additional context to clarify its meaning. Example: "The data source in this report is not clearly identified."

⚠ May contain grammatical issues

News & Media

Science

Wiki

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

59 human-written examples

"I'm clearly not an unbiased source in this regard".

The New York Times

A UN source in Minova backed the claims.

The Guardian

From one source in particular, Heinrichs received stinging criticism.

The New York Times - Sports

Identify and compare a reference source in each media.

The New York Times

But McIntyre was meanwhile guarded with his source in Norwich.

The Guardian

The film has its source in real life.

The New York Times

There is not a single named source in the story".

The Guardian

It's very difficult to source in the market.

The New York Times

Similarly, S.C. Johnson introduced Nature's Source in 2009.

The New York Times

Open Source in Chemistry.

Journal of Cheminformatics

Original Source (in Italian) [PocketPCItalia.com].

TechCrunch

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

In scientific and technical writing, specify the exact type of source to maintain precision. Instead of "source in", consider "data source", "energy source", or "information source".

Common error

Avoid using "source in" loosely without specifying the type of source. Instead, be specific: "The main energy source in this region is solar power" is more precise than "Energy is sourced in this region".

Linguistic Context

The phrase "source in" functions primarily as a prepositional phrase aiming to indicate the origin, location, or derivation of something. However, Ludwig AI notes that this construction is not standard English and suggests clearer alternatives. The usage varies across different contexts, from news articles to scientific papers, attempting to specify where information or resources originate.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

31%

Science

59%

Wiki

10%

Less common in

Formal & Business

0%

Academia

0%

Encyclopedias

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

While the phrase "source in" appears across various contexts, from news to science, it is not considered standard English. Ludwig AI points out that it's often vague and can be replaced by clearer alternatives like "originating from", "derived from", or "based in", depending on the intended meaning. Given its ambiguity, especially in formal writing, using more precise language will enhance clarity and ensure effective communication. When communicating the origin, location, or basis of something, selecting a more descriptive phrase will lead to better comprehension.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

originating from

Focuses specifically on the point of origin or beginning.

derived from

Emphasizes the process of obtaining or developing something from a specific source.

rooted in

Highlights a deep or fundamental connection to a specific foundation.

based in

Indicates a physical or organizational location or foundation.

located within

Emphasizes spatial containment or existence inside something else.

found within

Highlights the existence or availability of something inside something else.

contained in

Focuses on the act of being held or included within something.

available through

Highlights a means of access or procurement.

supplied by

Focuses on the provision or furnishing of something by a specific entity.

provided from

Emphasizes the act of supplying something from a particular origin or place.

FAQs

How can I use "source in" correctly in a sentence?

While the phrase "source in" isn't standard, it can be used to indicate where something originates or is located. However, it's often clearer to use alternatives like "originating from", "based in", or "derived from" depending on the context.

What's a better alternative to "source in" for indicating origin?

Alternatives like "originating from", "derived from", or "stemming from" are generally clearer and more grammatically sound when indicating the origin of something.

Is "source in" grammatically correct?

The phrase "source in" is not considered grammatically correct in standard English. It is generally better to rephrase using more common and accepted alternatives.

In what contexts might I encounter the phrase "source in"?

You might encounter "source in" in informal writing or technical contexts where the intended meaning is clear from the surrounding text, but it's best to use more precise language for clarity. Consider alternatives such as "available through" or "supplied by".