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?
Unreliable Magic - Is it worth it?
calculus parametric curve length
Preparing Indesign booklet with .psd graphics for print
If a black hole is created from light, can this black hole then move at speed of light?
Indicator light circuit
Help understanding this unsettling image of Titan, Epimetheus, and Saturn's rings?
Why do remote companies require working in the US?
Written every which way
Why do we use the plural of movies in this phrase "We went to the movies last night."?
Why didn't Khan get resurrected in the Genesis Explosion?
What's the best way to handle refactoring a big file?
If Nick Fury and Coulson already knew about aliens (Kree and Skrull) why did they wait until Thor's appearance to start making weapons?
What flight has the highest ratio of time difference to flight time?
Between two walls
What is the purpose of the Evocation wizard's Potent Cantrip feature?
Non-deterministic sum of floats
Is micro rebar a better way to reinforce concrete than rebar?
Can you replace a racial trait cantrip when leveling up?
How does the mv command work with external drives?
Why does the UK parliament need a vote on the political declaration?
What happens if you roll doubles 3 times then land on "Go to jail?"
How fast would a person need to move to trick the eye?
What connection does MS Office have to Netscape Navigator?
How do we know the LHC results are robust?
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
40 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
40 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
40 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
40 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
40 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
40 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
40 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