0

It sounds off and slightly wrong to my ears. Is it grammatically correct?

Ryan is the sinner of the creation of the third dispute.


Ryan is the sinner of the creation's third dispute.


I am trying to communicate that "Ryan is the one who started the third despute; he initiated it." I am simply trying to write creatively.


To my knowledge, what I wrote is grammatically correct, however, it is written poorly. How can I rewrite it to make it sound more pleasurable, while still maintaining the "creativity". (This sounds weird.)

closed as unclear what you're asking by tmgr, Centaurus, FumbleFingers, lbf, Jim Jan 7 at 14:56

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • What do you think is wrong about it? – TaliesinMerlin Jan 7 at 13:57
  • "It sounds off and slightly wrong to my ears." Don't you think so too? – Ryan Cameron Jan 7 at 13:57
  • 1
    What is it supposed to mean? As it stands it feels like a word salad to me, not a coherent sentence. – Robusto Jan 7 at 14:16
  • Yes. However, without further explanation of what you find grammatically incorrect or what you're trying to say, I don't know how to give feedback. What word, phrase, or feature sticks out to you? How have you tried to answer your question? – TaliesinMerlin Jan 7 at 14:17
  • 2
    Ryan created the third dispute or Ryan was the third dispute's creator or, if you really want to squeeze some "sin" into there somehow - Ryan was guilty of creating the third dispute ... any of those might suffice. Though it "feels" a bit weird to create a dispute, initiate might be better..? – CD001 Jan 7 at 14:36
3

This is not idiomatic.

  1. We usually speak of starting a dispute or quarrel rather than creating it.

    Ryan started the dispute.

  2. Sin and sinner are used primarily to designate violation of religious prescriptions (or prescriptions treated jocularly or ironically as religious). You would do better to use some form of blame (noun or verb) or fault. There are a number of idioms that use these terms.

    • These all declare that [PERSON] bears the primary responsibility for an unhappy [SITUATION]:

      blame [PERSON] for [SITUATION] — I blame Ryan for the dispute.
      blame [PERSON] for [ACTing] — I blame Ryan for starting the dispute.
      blame [SITUATION] on [PERSON] — I blame the dispute on Ryan.
      [SITUATION] be [PERSON]'s fault — The dispute is Ryan's fault.

    • at fault usually declares that [PERSON] bears some responsibility for [SITUATION]:

      [PERSON] be at fault (for [ACTing]) — Ryan is at fault for escalating the dispute.

    • be to blame for [SITUATION/ACTing] is ambivalent. With [SITUATION] it usually assigns primary responsibility; with [ACTing] it may assign either primary responsibility or only some.

      Ryan is to blame for the dispute.
      Ryan is to blame for starting the dispute.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.