0

  1. "His health problems can be attributed to not eating well."

  2. "His health problems can be attributed to him not eating well."

Are both these sentences grammatically correct? Is there any reason to use one over the other? Also, I understand using "...attributed to a poor diet," might be a better way to phrase things. But I specifically want to know if these two sentences are grammatically correct and if there's any reason to use one over the other as well as if there's a difference in what these sentences mean. Also, is the first sentence vague?

Improve this question
2
  • "is the first sentence vague"—Well, there's no reason to suppose his health problems are caused by someone else's bad eating, if that's what you mean. The situation, not the sentence structure, keeps this clear; some other situation like "He died because of negligence" could be less clear about who did what.
    – Andy Bonner
    Commented Sep 4 at 23:21
  • My preference for 2. is "His health problems can be attributed to his not eating well." I.E., It is his habits causing the issue, not him, himself.
    – DrMoishe Pippik
    Commented Sep 5 at 1:49

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0

  1. There is no difference in what these sentences mean.

  2. The first sentence is preferable because it is simpler. While the second sentence clarifies who didn't eat well, it's unnecessary.

  3. Technically, the second sentence should be:

His health problems can be attributed to his not eating well.

because the subject of a gerund takes the possessive case. That said, it is probably just as common in spoken American English to hear him as his.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .