+0
1) I've always used DUE TO as a synonym of BECAUSE OF.
Example: We weren't able to go DUE TO the rain. = We weren't able to go BECAUSE OF the rain.

Though I've seen somewhere, some teacher say that this use is wrong, indicating DUE TO should only be used as a synonym of CAUSED BY. If this is so, my example sentences above are incorrect.

2) DUE TO THE FACT = BECAUSE
Example: We weren't able to go BECAUSE it rained. = We weren't able to go DUE TO THE FACT it rained.

Regarding these words, I've read that we shouldn't use DUE TO THE FACT cause it's too long and "clumsy", rather we should use simply DUE.

Thanks.
1 2
Comments  
Hi Kenuya,

Welcome to English Forums.

'Due to the fact that' is indeed long-winded, and does not help the problem. We just had a long discussion on this: Due to. If you have further questions, please let us know.
I really appreciate your answer yesterday.

What about point 1 of my question (because of = due to)?

I wasn't able to access to "post 64059"; there seems to be some technical problem. So I can't take a look at the discussion you mentioned; I'd really like to though.

Tnaks again.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Hi Kenuya

You can get some information here;[url="http://www.ku.edu/~edit/because.html "]"because of" and "due to"[/url]

paco
Hi Kenuya,

You can continue to use due to to mean because of. The prohibition against it is just prescriptive claptrap. There could be some situations where it doesn't fit semantically but as M-W says,
"There is no solid reason to avoid due to". Where do these nonsensical ideas come from?!!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=due+to&x=0&y=0
M-W online:
Main Entry: due to
Function: preposition
: as a result of : BECAUSE OF
usage The objection to due to as a preposition is only a continuation of disagreements that began in the 18th century over the proper uses of owing and due. Due to is as grammatically sound as owing to, which is frequently recommended in its place. It has been and is used by reputable writers and has been recognized as standard for decades. There is no solid reason to avoid due to.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

JTT: From the site posted by Paco, <> , we get this;

“Because of” grew up as an adverb; “due to” grew up as an adjective.

ADJECTIVE???? Note that M-W describes it as a preposition.

*He is a due to guy.*

* This due to situation is going to be changed.*

As I said above, " Where do these nonsensical ideas come from?!!"

Hello JTT
Where do these nonsensical ideas come from?!!

My dictionary (OED) says "be due to" has been used in the sense of "be ascribed to" or "be caused by" since the middle of the 17th century. According to this Dr Samuel Johnson was somehow critical of this adjectival usage saying "the use may be proper but unusual". The adverbial use of "due to" in the sense of "because of" first appeared in literature in 1897. However William A. Craigie first criticized this as "erroneous" and a more harsh critique came from Henry W. Fowler, who in his "Modern Usage of English" (1926) censured as "illiterate" the use of "due to" to mean "because of". The adverbial use, however, is now widely current though rejected by many grammarians.

references
1. [url="http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n2_v49/ai_19100543"] Fowler's Modern English Usage[/url]
2. [url="http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk3.html "] Strunk's Elements of Style [/url]
3. [url="http://www.yaelf.com/aueFAQ/mifdueto.shtml "]Usage Dispute "due to"[/url]
4. [url="http://www.bartleby.com/61/61/D0416100.html "]AHDEL "due to"[/url]

paco
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
However William A. Craigie first criticized this as "erroneous" and a more harsh critique came from Henry W. Fowler, who in his "Modern Usage of English" (1926) censured as "illiterate" the use of "due to" to mean "because of".

JTT: Using Fowler to describe how language works today is an exercise in uselessness, Paco. I'm not even so sure his advice was useful when he wrote the book.

The adverbial use, however, is now widely current though rejected by many grammarians.

JTT: Only with prescriptive grammarians. You'll find that providing proof is not their long suit.
Hi JTT

I know what you mean. A language is changing with time so that it is always in a transient state. So what is acceptable to some native speakers would often be unacceptable to other native speakers. If I were among native speakers of English, I might say the same thing as you are saying. But I'm merely an English learner and as an English learner I would like to learn English in a form acceptable to native speakers as many as possible, not to say to all of them.

paco
Prescriptive claptrap...

I'm not sure it's the simple dichotomy that JTT's (prescriptively descriptivistic?) comments suggest. Yesterday's prescriptions are today's descriptions. The first prescriptive grammarians we encounter are our parents. From their speech patterns, and their corrections to our early efforts, we build up rules.

Then we listen to the speech patterns of other people, especially those of our peers, and adjust our own speech accordingly. We become fully-fledged descriptivists. Meanwhile we are introduced to books: the written word begins to influence our speech, descriptivistically, while our teachers' commentaries add further prescriptions.

Then we go to work, and learn new, specialist dialects: mostly descriptivistically; but sometimes, often unwillingly, by prescription. We learn the true meaning of 'bad grammar': you don't get the job.

Then we have children, and become prescriptive grammarians ourselves: not 'eleventy-one'! '121'!

For ESLs, the process is much the same: perhaps with even more emphasis on the 'prescriptive' side. It doesn't matter if children say 'eleventy-one' (1000 hits on Google). But non-native adults have to be a little bit more careful.

MrP
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Show more