|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833 |
It's one of those distinctions I just have to shrug off.
I dunno....It still bugs me. But then, I'm keen on precision in language and grammar (though I will confess to being a bit of a baddie when it comes to splitting infinitives). "Due to" when people mean "owing to" or "because of" drives me absolutely bananas!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Due to/owing to
Due, owing, what's the difference?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear MG: my dictionary says:
due to
1 caused by; resulting from !an omission due to oversight"
2 [Colloq.] because of: widely so used despite objections by some grammarians !the name was omitted due to oversight"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
OK, what's the difference between caused by and because of?
And note: I did not ask above what the difference was between due to and owing to, I asked what the difference was between due and owing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
I think this speaks to the point, Faldage..
Due to has been widely used for many years as a compound preposition like owing to, but some critics have insisted that due should be used only as an adjective. According to this view, it is incorrect to say The concert was canceled due to the rain but acceptable to say The cancellation of the concert was due to the rain, where due continues to function as an adjective modifying cancellation. This seems a fine point, however, and since due to is widely used and understood, there seems little reason to avoid using it as a preposition. [emPHAsis mine]
The American Heritage® Book of English Usage. Copyright © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
and while I'm there..
The traditional rule says that you should use fewer for things that can be counted (fewer than four players) but less with mass terms for things of measurable extent (less paper, less than a gallon of paint). But people use less in certain constructions where fewer would occur if the rule were being followed. You can use less than before a plural noun that denotes a measure of time, amount, or distance: less than three weeks, less than $400, less than 50 miles. You can sometimes use less with plural nouns in the expressions no less than and or less. Thus you can say No less than 30 of his colleagues signed the letter and Give your reasons in 25 words or less.
The American Heritage® Book of English Usage. Copyright © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 679 |
what's wrong with "10 or less"?
Nothing. Apart from the obvious grammatical error it's just an abbrevaition of "10 items or less than 10 items". But that's just stupid.
Now, what's wrong with "Special today!"?????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
You can use less than before a plural noun that denotes a measure of time, amount, or distance: less than three weeks, less than $400, less than 50 miles.
Well, duh! Even though it appears to be counting, it is, in fact, measuring and less is the "proper" word to use in those circumstances. You could hardly expect one to say, "Buffalo is expecting one inch or fewer of snow today."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
> What's wrong with "10 or less"?
Doesn't touch me at all (since the medication).
>Special today? ...
I had a special yesterday, but will tomorrow turn out special too?
Speaking of signs, The Wall Street Institute has a sign up here that reads:
'Learn English Free!'
..but from who, huh.. [g]
Just 'member: DRIVE SLOW!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833 |
Urgh.
Harking back to due to/owing to:
I would say, "The concert was due to start at 8 pm, but owing to one performer's illness, it began late."
I wouldn't say, "The concert was due to start at 8 pm, but due to one performer's illness, it began late."
I would say, "The Weather Network claims a snowstorm is due to begin this evening." (if I wanted to phrase it that way - in reality I'd probably say, "The Weather Network says we'll have a snowstorm tonight.")
I would NOT say, "Due to climactic conditions, we're supposed to get a snowstorm this evening."
"Due" is an indication of something forthcoming; not an indicator of reason.
It's like "light years" - another usage that is often mangled these days. Light years measure distance, not time. You cannot ACCURATELY say, even in jest, "He's light years older than I am." You CAN say, "Your modification of this plan is light years from my original idea."
And it's not, "He's older than me." It's, "He's older than I [am]."
ron pedantic [/rant]
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,809
Members9,187
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
778
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
