Financially Destitute is redundant. Most of English is context.

[Shaw]

I saw an earlier post discussing this, but it seemed like instead of losing the precursor to destitute people were conflating the word further with other adjectives, but in the end destitute already implies poor means and a lack of resources, money is a resource like anything else. To put financially in front is like saying I'm hungry for food. We already know if I'm hungry it’ll be for food, just like if you’re destitute it means you’re reliant in some way pertaining to resources. If you’re destitute you don’t have something. I believe any sentence where destitute was being used you could automatically link the puzzle piece, thru context, as to what specifically they’re pertaining to. To add a type of destitute is overly specific, the sentence doesn’t need it. Time is saved if the brain works it out, extra words can be misinterpreted. Thanks, I just wanted to add my two cents, let me know if anyone thinks it should be specific or if there’s a scenario where context wouldn’t work with destitute.

 

[Rover_KE]

Welcome to the forum, Shaw.

I saw an earlier post discussing this ...

Can you provide a link to the earlier post?

 

[jutfrank]

If, as you say, destitute relates to a lack of resources, then the modifier financially defines what kind of resources is meant. Since there are many kinds of resources, financially is not redundant.

If your point is that the kind of resources is so obvious from context that it is not worth mentioning, you'll have to provide that context for us to judge whether we agree.