Is “for causing autism in X” grammatical? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhat expression should I use in this case?Make sure you have somewhere to go / somewhere to work / something lined up etcWhen someone turns out as an enemyShould [good at something] be understood as active or passive?“This is that, as a native English speaker”?Is 'to avoid company' a correct expression?Should “get back to the old times” be taken literally or figuratively?Is there a more natural way of saying “wind was created”?Is “follow their actions” semantically correct?What do we say when we ask for an opinion to everyone in a group except the guy who just answered?
What was the first Unix version to run on a microcomputer?
Would this house-rule that treats advantage as a +1 to the roll instead (and disadvantage as -1) and allows them to stack be balanced?
Between two walls
Is HostGator storing my password in plaintext?
What's the best way to handle refactoring a big file?
Can I equip Skullclamp on a creature I am sacrificing?
In excess I'm lethal
Can we say or write : "No, it'sn't"?
Do I need to enable Dev Hub in my PROD Org?
How to count occurrences of text in a file?
Is it possible to search for a directory/file combination?
How do we know the LHC results are robust?
Contours of a clandestine nature
How to add tiny 0.5A 120V load to very remote split phase 240v 3 wire well house
sp_blitzCache results Memory grants
What does "Its cash flow is deeply negative" mean?
How fast would a person need to move to trick the eye?
Make solar eclipses exceedingly rare, but still have new moons
Novel about a guy who is possessed by the divine essence and the world ends?
Different harmonic changes implied by a simple descending scale
How did the Bene Gesserit know how to make a Kwisatz Haderach?
Elegant way to replace substring in a regex with optional groups in Python?
WOW air has ceased operation, can I get my tickets refunded?
calculus parametric curve length
Is “for causing autism in X” grammatical?
The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhat expression should I use in this case?Make sure you have somewhere to go / somewhere to work / something lined up etcWhen someone turns out as an enemyShould [good at something] be understood as active or passive?“This is that, as a native English speaker”?Is 'to avoid company' a correct expression?Should “get back to the old times” be taken literally or figuratively?Is there a more natural way of saying “wind was created”?Is “follow their actions” semantically correct?What do we say when we ask for an opinion to everyone in a group except the guy who just answered?
I am not sure, but "for causing autism in X" seems ungrammatical when X is a person, when x is a particular group of people it doesn't sound off, but when it's a particular person, it sounds ungrammatical. Is it?
For example:
The pharmaceutical company Avalon was sued for causing autism in
Michael.
phrases idiomatic-language
asked 1 hour ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
1697
add a comment |
I am not sure, but "for causing autism in X" seems ungrammatical when X is a person, when x is a particular group of people it doesn't sound off, but when it's a particular person, it sounds ungrammatical. Is it?
For example:
The pharmaceutical company Avalon was sued for causing autism in
Michael.
phrases idiomatic-language
asked 1 hour ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
1697
Let me ask how you would write this. If you didn't write "in Michael" how would state it?
– Don B.
1 hour ago
Are you really just asking about the preposition in in that sentence, and the phrase in Michael, and not for causing ...?
– userr2684291
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I am not sure, but "for causing autism in X" seems ungrammatical when X is a person, when x is a particular group of people it doesn't sound off, but when it's a particular person, it sounds ungrammatical. Is it?
For example:
The pharmaceutical company Avalon was sued for causing autism in
Michael.
phrases idiomatic-language
asked 1 hour ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
1697
I am not sure, but "for causing autism in X" seems ungrammatical when X is a person, when x is a particular group of people it doesn't sound off, but when it's a particular person, it sounds ungrammatical. Is it?
For example:
The pharmaceutical company Avalon was sued for causing autism in
Michael.
phrases idiomatic-language
phrases idiomatic-language
asked 1 hour ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
1697
asked 1 hour ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
1697
asked 1 hour ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
1697
asked 1 hour ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
1697
asked 1 hour ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
1697
1697
Let me ask how you would write this. If you didn't write "in Michael" how would state it?
– Don B.
1 hour ago
Are you really just asking about the preposition in in that sentence, and the phrase in Michael, and not for causing ...?
– userr2684291
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Let me ask how you would write this. If you didn't write "in Michael" how would state it?
– Don B.
1 hour ago
Are you really just asking about the preposition in in that sentence, and the phrase in Michael, and not for causing ...?
– userr2684291
1 hour ago
Let me ask how you would write this. If you didn't write "in Michael" how would state it?
– Don B.
1 hour ago
Let me ask how you would write this. If you didn't write "in Michael" how would state it?
– Don B.
1 hour ago
Are you really just asking about the preposition in in that sentence, and the phrase in Michael, and not for causing ...?
– userr2684291
1 hour ago
Are you really just asking about the preposition in in that sentence, and the phrase in Michael, and not for causing ...?
– userr2684291
1 hour ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The phraseology you're interested in ("for causing autism in X") is grammatically correct, whether referencing a group or an individual. Arguments could be made as to whether or not you need a couple of commas, e.g.,
The pharmaceutical company, Avalon, was sued....
But whether or not they were necessary would depend on the preceding couple of sentences and the style requirements of whomever you're writing this for.
answered 1 hour ago
JBHJBH
1,7211313
1
Commas would be used if a pharmaceutical company was previously discussed, but the fact that the name of the company is Avalon is only now being disclosed.
– Acccumulation
1 hour ago
@Acccumulation If previous context established the fact that only a single company was being discussed (even if not named), then the name is nonrestrictive and needs commas. Or so most people would say.
– Jason Bassford
41 mins ago
add a comment |
I don't know about ungrammatical, but it certainly seems unnatural. It would be more usual to have:
The pharmaceutical company Avalon was sued for causing Michael's autism.
When it's a group or a category or a parameter, then causing X in Y is fine. For an individual, at least for this sort of use, you're right that it seems 'off'.
answered 1 hour ago
SamBCSamBC
15.5k2159
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "481"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f203033%2fis-for-causing-autism-in-x-grammatical%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The phraseology you're interested in ("for causing autism in X") is grammatically correct, whether referencing a group or an individual. Arguments could be made as to whether or not you need a couple of commas, e.g.,
The pharmaceutical company, Avalon, was sued....
But whether or not they were necessary would depend on the preceding couple of sentences and the style requirements of whomever you're writing this for.
answered 1 hour ago
JBHJBH
1,7211313
1
Commas would be used if a pharmaceutical company was previously discussed, but the fact that the name of the company is Avalon is only now being disclosed.
– Acccumulation
1 hour ago
@Acccumulation If previous context established the fact that only a single company was being discussed (even if not named), then the name is nonrestrictive and needs commas. Or so most people would say.
– Jason Bassford
41 mins ago
add a comment |
The phraseology you're interested in ("for causing autism in X") is grammatically correct, whether referencing a group or an individual. Arguments could be made as to whether or not you need a couple of commas, e.g.,
The pharmaceutical company, Avalon, was sued....
But whether or not they were necessary would depend on the preceding couple of sentences and the style requirements of whomever you're writing this for.
answered 1 hour ago
JBHJBH
1,7211313
1
Commas would be used if a pharmaceutical company was previously discussed, but the fact that the name of the company is Avalon is only now being disclosed.
– Acccumulation
1 hour ago
@Acccumulation If previous context established the fact that only a single company was being discussed (even if not named), then the name is nonrestrictive and needs commas. Or so most people would say.
– Jason Bassford
41 mins ago
add a comment |
The phraseology you're interested in ("for causing autism in X") is grammatically correct, whether referencing a group or an individual. Arguments could be made as to whether or not you need a couple of commas, e.g.,
The pharmaceutical company, Avalon, was sued....
But whether or not they were necessary would depend on the preceding couple of sentences and the style requirements of whomever you're writing this for.
answered 1 hour ago
JBHJBH
1,7211313
The phraseology you're interested in ("for causing autism in X") is grammatically correct, whether referencing a group or an individual. Arguments could be made as to whether or not you need a couple of commas, e.g.,
The pharmaceutical company, Avalon, was sued....
But whether or not they were necessary would depend on the preceding couple of sentences and the style requirements of whomever you're writing this for.
answered 1 hour ago
JBHJBH
1,7211313
answered 1 hour ago
JBHJBH
1,7211313
answered 1 hour ago
JBHJBH
1,7211313
answered 1 hour ago
JBHJBH
1,7211313
1,7211313
1
Commas would be used if a pharmaceutical company was previously discussed, but the fact that the name of the company is Avalon is only now being disclosed.
– Acccumulation
1 hour ago
@Acccumulation If previous context established the fact that only a single company was being discussed (even if not named), then the name is nonrestrictive and needs commas. Or so most people would say.
– Jason Bassford
41 mins ago
add a comment |
1
Commas would be used if a pharmaceutical company was previously discussed, but the fact that the name of the company is Avalon is only now being disclosed.
– Acccumulation
1 hour ago
@Acccumulation If previous context established the fact that only a single company was being discussed (even if not named), then the name is nonrestrictive and needs commas. Or so most people would say.
– Jason Bassford
41 mins ago
1
1
Commas would be used if a pharmaceutical company was previously discussed, but the fact that the name of the company is Avalon is only now being disclosed.
– Acccumulation
1 hour ago
Commas would be used if a pharmaceutical company was previously discussed, but the fact that the name of the company is Avalon is only now being disclosed.
– Acccumulation
1 hour ago
@Acccumulation If previous context established the fact that only a single company was being discussed (even if not named), then the name is nonrestrictive and needs commas. Or so most people would say.
– Jason Bassford
41 mins ago
@Acccumulation If previous context established the fact that only a single company was being discussed (even if not named), then the name is nonrestrictive and needs commas. Or so most people would say.
– Jason Bassford
41 mins ago
add a comment |
I don't know about ungrammatical, but it certainly seems unnatural. It would be more usual to have:
The pharmaceutical company Avalon was sued for causing Michael's autism.
When it's a group or a category or a parameter, then causing X in Y is fine. For an individual, at least for this sort of use, you're right that it seems 'off'.
answered 1 hour ago
SamBCSamBC
15.5k2159
add a comment |
I don't know about ungrammatical, but it certainly seems unnatural. It would be more usual to have:
The pharmaceutical company Avalon was sued for causing Michael's autism.
When it's a group or a category or a parameter, then causing X in Y is fine. For an individual, at least for this sort of use, you're right that it seems 'off'.
answered 1 hour ago
SamBCSamBC
15.5k2159
add a comment |
I don't know about ungrammatical, but it certainly seems unnatural. It would be more usual to have:
The pharmaceutical company Avalon was sued for causing Michael's autism.
When it's a group or a category or a parameter, then causing X in Y is fine. For an individual, at least for this sort of use, you're right that it seems 'off'.
answered 1 hour ago
SamBCSamBC
15.5k2159
I don't know about ungrammatical, but it certainly seems unnatural. It would be more usual to have:
The pharmaceutical company Avalon was sued for causing Michael's autism.
When it's a group or a category or a parameter, then causing X in Y is fine. For an individual, at least for this sort of use, you're right that it seems 'off'.
answered 1 hour ago
SamBCSamBC
15.5k2159
answered 1 hour ago
SamBCSamBC
15.5k2159
answered 1 hour ago
SamBCSamBC
15.5k2159
answered 1 hour ago
SamBCSamBC
15.5k2159
15.5k2159
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f203033%2fis-for-causing-autism-in-x-grammatical%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Let me ask how you would write this. If you didn't write "in Michael" how would state it?
– Don B.
1 hour ago
Are you really just asking about the preposition in in that sentence, and the phrase in Michael, and not for causing ...?
– userr2684291
1 hour ago