Wow, my thoughts exactly, Geoff! I think "due to" is an acceptable idiomatic
adverb and has been for some time.

John

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

>  Here's the first web site that came up when I googled "due to vs. because"
>
> http://web.ku.edu/~edit/because.html
>
> Here's what they had to say. I know what I'd say if I were a student - "Who
> gives a sh*&*^!"
>
> Different due to because of . . .
>
> The word pairs “because of” and “due to” are not interchangeable. The
> reason they are not is that they “grew up” differently in the language.
> “Because of” grew up as an adverb; “due to” grew up as an adjective.
> Remember that adjectives modify only nouns or pronouns, whereas adverbs
> usually modify verbs. (The fact that adverbs occasionally modify other
> adverbs or even adjectives and entire phrases is not relevant to this
> particular discussion.)
> To be more precise, with their attendant words, “due to” and “because of”
> operate as adjectival and adverbial prepositional phrases. To understand how
> the functions of “due to” and “because of” vary, look at these sentences.*
> *****
>
> *1.* *His defeat was* *due to** the lottery issue.*****
>
> *2. He was defeated **because of** the lottery issue.*****
>
> In sentence #1, his is a possessive pronoun that modifies the noun defeat.
> The verb “was” is a linking verb. So, to create a sentence, we need a
> subject complement after the verb “was.” The adjectival prepositional phrase
> “due to the lottery issue” is that complement, linked to the subject by
> “was.” Thus, it modifies the noun defeat.
> But in sentence #2, the pronoun "he" has become the sentence's subject. The
> verb is now “was defeated.” As reconstructed, “He was defeated” could in
> fact be a complete sentence. And “due to” has nothing to modify. It's an
> adjective, remember? It can't very well modify the pronoun “he,” can it?
> Neither can it refer to “was defeated” because adjectives don't modify
> verbs. Sentence 2, therefore, should read: “He was defeated because of the
> lottery issue.” Now the “why” of the verb “was defeated” is explained,
> properly, by an adverbial prepositional phrase, “because of.”
> In informal speech, we probably can get by with such improper usage as “His
> defeat was because of the lottery issue,” and “He was defeated due to the
> lottery issue.” But we shouldn't accept that kind of sloppiness in writing.
> We don't want to look stupid among those in the audience who know better. If
> we show them we don't care about the language, how can we expect them to
> believe us when we tell them that we care about the facts? ****
>
> *OK*, how well do you know it? A little practice makes perfect. Click
> here, <http://web.ku.edu/%7Eedit/becausetest.html> if you're game.****
>
>
> Geoff Layton
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:06:49 -0500
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: 'Bad' English
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> Brad, you're not alone. I wondered about #4 as well. Maybe there is an
> objection to using "had to"? But what is the other option in the past tense
> since there is no past for "must" in modern English? I suppose "were were
> forced to" but that gives a much more passive meaning. Perhaps the author
> objects to fronting the adverb phrase?
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Brad Layton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>  I'm reluctant to place my ignorance on public display :) , but ...
>
> What is "incorrect" about #4?
>
> (4)  Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic.
>
> Thanks,
> Brad Layton
>
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]>
> To: ATEG <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Mon, Sep 19, 2011 7:26 pm
> Subject: 'Bad' English
>
>  Trask in his *Why do Languages Change* includes (p. 10) nine sentences
> that he considered would be or shortly become
> accepted as "normal English grammar."  One of the sentences (number seven)
> is strictly conversational and unlikely
> to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have
> egregious errors.  What do you think?
>
> (1)  I recommend you to take the job.
> (2)  He demanded that the agitators were arrested.
> (3)  This is just between you and I.
> (4)  Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic.
> (5)  This paper was written by Susie and myself.
> (6)  Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m.
> (7)  If he'd've played, we would have won.
> (8)  He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws.
> (9)  Having said that, there is no feasible alternative.
>
> Scott Catledge
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
> leave the list"
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>   To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
> "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
> leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>  To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
> leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/