Is “for causing autism in X” grammatical? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhat expression...

Is it professional to write unrelated content in an almost-empty email?

multiple labels for a single equation

Why do professional authors make "consistency" mistakes? And how to avoid them?

Why didn't Khan get resurrected in the Genesis Explosion?

Won the lottery - how do I keep the money?

Sending manuscript to multiple publishers

What does convergence in distribution "in the Gromov–Hausdorff" sense mean?

What was the first Unix version to run on a microcomputer?

If a black hole is created from light, can this black hole then move at speed of light?

I believe this to be a fraud - hired, then asked to cash check and send cash as Bitcoin

How did people program for Consoles with multiple CPUs?

In excess I'm lethal

Are there any unintended negative consequences to allowing PCs to gain multiple levels at once in a short milestone-XP game?

Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?

Unreliable Magic - Is it worth it?

Return the Closest Prime Number

Should I tutor a student who I know has cheated on their homework?

MessageLevel in QGIS3

Elegant way to replace substring in a regex with optional groups in Python?

Is micro rebar a better way to reinforce concrete than rebar?

How fast would a person need to move to trick the eye?

What is the purpose of the Evocation wizard's Potent Cantrip feature?

How to add tiny 0.5A 120V load to very remote split phase 240v 3 wire well house

Can we say or write : "No, it'sn't"?



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?












1















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.











share|improve this question























  • Let me ask how you would write this. If you didn't write "in Michael" how would state it?

    – Don B.
    42 mins ago











  • Are you really just asking about the preposition in in that sentence, and the phrase in Michael, and not for causing ...?

    – userr2684291
    36 mins ago


















1















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.











share|improve this question























  • Let me ask how you would write this. If you didn't write "in Michael" how would state it?

    – Don B.
    42 mins ago











  • Are you really just asking about the preposition in in that sentence, and the phrase in Michael, and not for causing ...?

    – userr2684291
    36 mins ago
















1












1








1








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.











share|improve this question














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






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 51 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.
    42 mins ago











  • Are you really just asking about the preposition in in that sentence, and the phrase in Michael, and not for causing ...?

    – userr2684291
    36 mins ago





















  • Let me ask how you would write this. If you didn't write "in Michael" how would state it?

    – Don B.
    42 mins ago











  • Are you really just asking about the preposition in in that sentence, and the phrase in Michael, and not for causing ...?

    – userr2684291
    36 mins ago



















Let me ask how you would write this. If you didn't write "in Michael" how would state it?

– Don B.
42 mins ago





Let me ask how you would write this. If you didn't write "in Michael" how would state it?

– Don B.
42 mins ago













Are you really just asking about the preposition in in that sentence, and the phrase in Michael, and not for causing ...?

– userr2684291
36 mins ago







Are you really just asking about the preposition in in that sentence, and the phrase in Michael, and not for causing ...?

– userr2684291
36 mins ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3














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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 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
    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
    5 mins ago



















2














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'.






share|improve this answer
























    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
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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









    3














    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.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 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
      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
      5 mins ago
















    3














    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.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 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
      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
      5 mins ago














    3












    3








    3







    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.






    share|improve this answer













    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.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 42 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
      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
      5 mins ago














    • 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
      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
      5 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
    40 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
    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
    5 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
    5 mins ago













    2














    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'.






    share|improve this answer




























      2














      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'.






      share|improve this answer


























        2












        2








        2







        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'.






        share|improve this answer













        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'.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 42 mins ago









        SamBCSamBC

        15.5k2159




        15.5k2159






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            ORA-01691 (unable to extend lob segment) even though my tablespace has AUTOEXTEND onORA-01692: unable to...

            Always On Availability groups resolving state after failover - Remote harden of transaction...

            Circunscripción electoral de Guipúzcoa Referencias Menú de navegaciónLas claves del sistema electoral en...