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/