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?
Is it possible to search for a directory/file combination?
In excess I'm lethal
MessageLevel in QGIS3
Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?
Does it take more energy to get to Venus or to Mars?
If a black hole is created from light, can this black hole then move at speed of light?
How did people program for Consoles with multiple CPUs?
Won the lottery - how do I keep the money?
Elegant way to replace substring in a regex with optional groups in Python?
What was the first Unix version to run on a microcomputer?
WOW air has ceased operation, can I get my tickets refunded?
Limits on contract work without pre-agreed price/contract (UK)
Example of a Mathematician/Physicist whose Other Publications during their PhD eclipsed their PhD Thesis
Why do we use the plural of movies in this phrase "We went to the movies last night."?
Unreliable Magic - Is it worth it?
Written every which way
Which tube will fit a -(700 x 25c) wheel?
Help understanding this unsettling image of Titan, Epimetheus, and Saturn's rings?
Would a galaxy be visible from outside, but nearby?
Bold, vivid family
Complex fractions
What happens if you roll doubles 3 times then land on "Go to jail?"
What does convergence in distribution "in the Gromov–Hausdorff" sense mean?
Novel about a guy who is possessed by the divine essence and the world ends?
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 46 mins ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
1647
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 46 mins ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
1647
Let me ask how you would write this. If you didn't write "in Michael" how would state it?
– Don B.
37 mins ago
Are you really just asking about the preposition in in that sentence, and the phrase in Michael, and not for causing ...?
– userr2684291
30 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 46 mins ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
1647
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 46 mins ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
1647
asked 46 mins ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
1647
asked 46 mins ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
1647
asked 46 mins ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
1647
asked 46 mins ago
frbsfokfrbsfok
1647
1647
Let me ask how you would write this. If you didn't write "in Michael" how would state it?
– Don B.
37 mins ago
Are you really just asking about the preposition in in that sentence, and the phrase in Michael, and not for causing ...?
– userr2684291
30 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.
37 mins ago
Are you really just asking about the preposition in in that sentence, and the phrase in Michael, and not for causing ...?
– userr2684291
30 mins ago
Let me ask how you would write this. If you didn't write "in Michael" how would state it?
– Don B.
37 mins ago
Let me ask how you would write this. If you didn't write "in Michael" how would state it?
– Don B.
37 mins ago
Are you really just asking about the preposition in in that sentence, and the phrase in Michael, and not for causing ...?
– userr2684291
30 mins ago
Are you really just asking about the preposition in in that sentence, and the phrase in Michael, and not for causing ...?
– userr2684291
30 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 37 mins ago
JBHJBH
1,6461313
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
34 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
18 secs 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 37 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 37 mins ago
JBHJBH
1,6461313
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
34 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
18 secs 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 37 mins ago
JBHJBH
1,6461313
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
34 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
18 secs 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 37 mins ago
JBHJBH
1,6461313
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 37 mins ago
JBHJBH
1,6461313
answered 37 mins ago
JBHJBH
1,6461313
answered 37 mins ago
JBHJBH
1,6461313
answered 37 mins ago
JBHJBH
1,6461313
1,6461313
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
34 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
18 secs 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
34 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
18 secs 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
34 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
34 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
18 secs 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
18 secs 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 37 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 37 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 37 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 37 mins ago
SamBCSamBC
15.5k2159
answered 37 mins ago
SamBCSamBC
15.5k2159
answered 37 mins ago
SamBCSamBC
15.5k2159
answered 37 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.
37 mins ago
Are you really just asking about the preposition in in that sentence, and the phrase in Michael, and not for causing ...?
– userr2684291
30 mins ago