Is “for causing autism in X” grammatical? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhat expression...
What flight has the highest ratio of time difference to flight time?
multiple labels for a single equation
Contours of a clandestine nature
Is it my responsibility to learn a new technology in my own time my employer wants to implement?
What expression will give age in years in QGIS?
What is the purpose of the Evocation wizard's Potent Cantrip feature?
How fast would a person need to move to trick the eye?
Complex fractions
WOW air has ceased operation, can I get my tickets refunded?
Would a galaxy be visible from outside, but nearby?
Bold, vivid family
Skipping indices in a product
Indicator light circuit
Why does the UK parliament need a vote on the political declaration?
Novel about a guy who is possessed by the divine essence and the world ends?
Which tube will fit a -(700 x 25c) wheel?
Help understanding this unsettling image of Titan, Epimetheus, and Saturn's rings?
Sending manuscript to multiple publishers
If the heap is initialized for security, then why is the stack uninitialized?
What's the best way to handle refactoring a big file?
Inappropriate reference requests from Journal reviewers
How does the mv command work with external drives?
Is there an analogue of projective spaces for proper schemes?
Should I tutor a student who I know has cheated on their homework?
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 49 mins ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
1627
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 49 mins ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
1627
Let me ask how you would write this. If you didn't write "in Michael" how would state it?
– Don B.
40 mins ago
Are you really just asking about the preposition in in that sentence, and the phrase in Michael, and not for causing ...?
– userr2684291
34 mins 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 49 mins ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
1627
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 49 mins ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
1627
asked 49 mins ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
1627
asked 49 mins ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
1627
asked 49 mins ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
1627
asked 49 mins ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
1627
1627
Let me ask how you would write this. If you didn't write "in Michael" how would state it?
– Don B.
40 mins ago
Are you really just asking about the preposition in in that sentence, and the phrase in Michael, and not for causing ...?
– userr2684291
34 mins 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.
40 mins ago
Are you really just asking about the preposition in in that sentence, and the phrase in Michael, and not for causing ...?
– userr2684291
34 mins ago
Let me ask how you would write this. If you didn't write "in Michael" how would state it?
– Don B.
40 mins ago
Let me ask how you would write this. If you didn't write "in Michael" how would state it?
– Don B.
40 mins ago
Are you really just asking about the preposition in in that sentence, and the phrase in Michael, and not for causing ...?
– userr2684291
34 mins ago
Are you really just asking about the preposition in in that sentence, and the phrase in Michael, and not for causing ...?
– userr2684291
34 mins 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 40 mins ago
JBHJBH
1,6661313
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
38 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
3 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 40 mins 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 40 mins ago
JBHJBH
1,6661313
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
38 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
3 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 40 mins ago
JBHJBH
1,6661313
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
38 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
3 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 40 mins ago
JBHJBH
1,6661313
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 40 mins ago
JBHJBH
1,6661313
answered 40 mins ago
JBHJBH
1,6661313
answered 40 mins ago
JBHJBH
1,6661313
answered 40 mins ago
JBHJBH
1,6661313
1,6661313
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
38 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
3 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
38 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
3 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
38 mins 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
38 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
3 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
3 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 40 mins 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 40 mins 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 40 mins 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 40 mins ago
SamBCSamBC
15.5k2159
answered 40 mins ago
SamBCSamBC
15.5k2159
answered 40 mins ago
SamBCSamBC
15.5k2159
answered 40 mins 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.
40 mins ago
Are you really just asking about the preposition in in that sentence, and the phrase in Michael, and not for causing ...?
– userr2684291
34 mins ago