2

Are these two sentences correct?

Poverty abounds in where she comes from.

Poverty abounds where she comes from.

6
  • Welcome to ELL. Would you tell us what are your thoughts about those sentences? You can add your paraphrases by editing the question, (using "edit" option below the question)
    – Cardinal
    Aug 16, 2016 at 16:18
  • I was not sure about "in where". Now that @Catija has made things clear, I know it's incorrect.
    – user40213
    Aug 16, 2016 at 16:39
  • It is great. BTW, consider the following as a suggestion, questions which do not reflect your specific problem are not very welcomed here and often receive comments requesting for either context or the OP's specific problem. {OP = Original Poster}
    – Cardinal
    Aug 16, 2016 at 16:43
  • I'm not sure what "reflect my specific problem" means. I was going to include the question's sentence in a piece of writing when it occured to me that the "in" version could be correct as well. Does that qualify as a specific problem or not?
    – user40213
    Aug 16, 2016 at 17:00
  • You should wait 24 to 48 hours before selecting an answer. By selecting an answer so soon, you are lowering the likelihood of getting other answers. See Not so fast! (When should I accept my answer?) Aug 16, 2016 at 18:38

2 Answers 2

3

No. Only the second option is correct.

Poverty abounds where she comes from.

In order to use "in", you need a more definite place. You can not use it with "where".

Poverty abounds in the neighborhood she lives in.
Poverty abounds in the town she comes from.

5
  • The crucial point is that the fused relative "where" means "in a place where", so the "in" component is effectively already present.
    – BillJ
    Aug 16, 2016 at 19:10
  • Except, as a native speaker, I would never think of it that way... I'd be more likely to hear it as "In the place she comes from"... without the "where" entirely... It's not necessary in that usage. Also, it would never be "in a place"... it's the place...
    – Catija
    Aug 16, 2016 at 19:16
  • 1
    That's the whole point of the fused relative word "where". "The meaning of the OP's specific example is "Poverty abounds in the place where she comes from", where the 'fused' relative word "where" means "in the place where". So the "in" component of the adjunct is already contributed in the meaning of fused "where", thus explaining why "in where" is ungrammatical.
    – BillJ
    Aug 16, 2016 at 19:31
  • If you say so. I'm not going to argue with you about it here... I can't explain something that I've never heard of before, though... Every answer can't be perfect and your answer always covers this, so I don't see any reason to edit mine.
    – Catija
    Aug 16, 2016 at 19:34
  • Oh well, at least you now know what a 'fused' relative clause is all about!
    – BillJ
    Aug 16, 2016 at 19:40
2

Poverty abounds where she comes from.

No: you're example is a 'fused' relative construction in which "where" means "in/at a place where", so you don't need another "in".

You must log in to answer this question.