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

What can we do to stop prior company from asking us questions?

Skipping indices in a product

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

Do I need to enable Dev Hub in my PROD Org?

Why did we only see the N-1 starfighters in one film?

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

Why does the UK parliament need a vote on the political declaration?

How to invert MapIndexed on a ragged structure? How to construct a tree from rules?

How does the mv command work with external drives?

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

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 is ( CFMCC ) on ILS approach chart?

Return the Closest Prime Number

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

Why has the US not been more assertive in confronting Russia in recent years?

How did people program for Consoles with multiple CPUs?

Is there an analogue of projective spaces for proper schemes?

In excess I'm lethal

Anatomically Correct Strange Women In Ponds Distributing Swords

What expression will give age in years in QGIS?

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

calculus parametric curve length

Sending manuscript to multiple publishers

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



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.
    39 mins ago











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

    – userr2684291
    32 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.
    39 mins ago











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

    – userr2684291
    32 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 48 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.
    39 mins ago











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

    – userr2684291
    32 mins ago





















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

    – Don B.
    39 mins ago











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

    – userr2684291
    32 mins ago



















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

– Don B.
39 mins ago





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

– Don B.
39 mins ago













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

– userr2684291
32 mins ago







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

– userr2684291
32 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
    36 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
    2 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
      36 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
      2 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
      36 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
      2 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 39 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
      36 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
      2 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
      36 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
      2 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
    36 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
    36 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
    2 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
    2 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 39 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

            Щит и меч (фильм) Содержание Названия серий | Сюжет |...

            is 'sed' thread safeWhat should someone know about using Python scripts in the shell?Nexenta bash script uses...

            Meter-Bus Содержание Параметры шины | Стандартизация |...