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

Example of a Mathematician/Physicist whose Other Publications during their PhD eclipsed their PhD Thesis

What happens if you roll doubles 3 times then land on "Go to jail?"

How do I go from 300 unfinished/half written blog posts, to published posts?

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

multiple labels for a single equation

Is HostGator storing my password in plaintext?

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

Complex fractions

If/When UK leaves the EU, can a future goverment conduct a referendum to join the EU?

Different harmonic changes implied by a simple descending scale

What is ( CFMCC ) on ILS approach chart?

How to make a variable always equal to the result of some calculations?

SQL Server 2016 - excessive memory grant warning on poor performing query

Can I equip Skullclamp on a creature I am sacrificing?

Is it my responsibility to learn a new technology in my own time my employer wants to implement?

How do we know the LHC results are robust?

Skipping indices in a product

Inappropriate reference requests from Journal reviewers

Does it take more energy to get to Venus or to Mars?

What connection does MS Office have to Netscape Navigator?

Won the lottery - how do I keep the money?

Preparing Indesign booklet with .psd graphics for print

What does "Its cash flow is deeply negative" mean?

What happened in Rome, when the western empire "fell"?



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.
    47 mins ago











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

    – userr2684291
    41 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.
    47 mins ago











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

    – userr2684291
    41 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 56 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.
    47 mins ago











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

    – userr2684291
    41 mins ago





















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

    – Don B.
    47 mins ago











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

    – userr2684291
    41 mins ago



















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

– Don B.
47 mins ago





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

– Don B.
47 mins ago













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

– userr2684291
41 mins ago







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

– userr2684291
41 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
    45 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
    10 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
      45 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
      10 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
      45 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
      10 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 47 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
      45 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
      10 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
      45 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
      10 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
    45 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
    45 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
    10 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
    10 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 47 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

            Can't compile dgruyter and caption packagesLaTeX templates/packages for writing a patent specificationLatex...

            Schneeberg (Smreczany) Bibliografia | Menu...

            Hans Bellmer Spis treści Życiorys | Upamiętnienie | Przypisy | Bibliografia | Linki zewnętrzne |...