it is grammatically correct to say it. but committed itself means committed to a commitment. that is only if you have a commitment you can get committed.
so it is not really necessary to specify it.
It depends on the context. If you wanted to say that a crime was committed for a reason, or that you were committed for (this reason) to an institute of some description, then yes, it is grammatically correct. If you wanted to say that your were committed to a venture, then 'to' is probably better to use than 'for', although once again, context is everything.
You are committed to someone or something, for example:
I am committed to my children and their future.
I was committed to the correctional facility.
You are committed for a reason or an action, for example:
I am committed for two hours of volunteer service.
I was committed for breaking and entering
We say in the territory
As is so often the case - that depends. Committed as a past participle would take the participial form: we were committed to working... But as a preterite, it would take the infinitive: We committed to work collaboratively.
Committed was correct.The spelling "committed" is the correct spelling.
Yes, committed is the correct spelling.
Yes. It is correct to say an abode.
It is not correct, you have to say on the beach.
Is it correct to say no one cares?
it correct to say
Yes, it is correct to say you are 'family-orientated'. It is also correct to say you are 'family-oriented'.
Do you mean, "How can you say that this story is correct?" The answer is, "This story is correct."
Yes, that is correct. It is also correct to say the licenses have expired.
No, it is not correct to say "back in home." The correct expression is "back home" or "back at home."