(from the words to avoid thread.Medievalist said:
Can you elucidate the correct usage? I've always had trouble with due to/because of.
Thanks
Usage question
- Thread starter Tish Davidson
- Start date
- Status
Can you elucidate the correct usage? I've always had trouble with due to/because of.
Thanks
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 1,148
- Location
- Arizona
- Website
- www.janetismeantome.com
I'm fairly sure that it's OK when used in as an adjective, or in an adjectival phrase, but it's no longer OK when used as a preposition.
That probably doesn't help, does it? :B
That probably doesn't help, does it? :B
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 1,146
- Reaction score
- 69
- Location
- California for now, Oregon otherwise
- Website
- www.geocities.com
As quoted from "Woe is I" by Patricia T. O'Conner: When you want to be on your very best grammatical behavior, use due to only if you mean "caused by" or "resulting from": The damage was due to moths. In recent years, dictionaries have come to accept a looser usage meaning "because of" or "on account of" . . . but be warned that some find this grating, especially at the front of a sentence: "Due to the hole, Richie threw the suit away."
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
Pretty much it...
Now I have another one. When do you use "out" and "out of" or are they interchangable?
I look out of the window.
I look out the window.
Now I have another one. When do you use "out" and "out of" or are they interchangable?
I look out of the window.
I look out the window.
Tish Davidson said:
First, a warning; I have strong feelings of loathing towards the expression, and am aware that years of teaching freshman composition and undergrad lit classes, and working as a tech writer have driven me mad.
Second, a source that I usually respect regarding usage (though it's wrong about compose and comprise), The American Heritage Usage Guide:
First, the grammar: due is an adjective and means "attributable"; due to is usually* described as an preposition. If the word attributable can be substituted for due in a sentence you have written, your sentence is grammatically correct. (But quite likely hideously ugly.)
If attributable does not sound right in the sentence, you should consider because of.
Now here's my take on it: remember, I'm not quite sane on this issue. In a group of about eighty student papers I once counted, more than half of them used "due to."
Due to is almost always either completely unnecessary, or a needlessly preposition-laden substitute for "because."
Due to was used exceedingly often in the 1980s for bad news in corporate/business writing, so much so that now, "due to" makes readers flinch in preparation for the bad news.
**I once heard Noam Chomsky argue that due to was still an adjective, that the preposition was adhesive and thus not important; me, I don't care because I loathe the phrase no matter what you call it.
Oh yeah, W. H. Fowler hates it too. So there.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 886
- Reaction score
- 71
- Location
- not in AZ anymore...
- Website
- fantasyauthor.blogspot.com
maestrowork said:
Out of the window feels incorrect to me. We jump out of a moving car. We take things out of a box. We look out the window, but we do not jump out the moving car.
If you can possibly delete the "of," do so. AZbikergirl's example is a good one. Though I think UK usage may even accept "jumped out the car."
Ray, nice to see your whole face!
Ray, nice to see your whole face!
The OED doesn't accept "Due to [noun], [main clause]" as good usage. That was clear in its entry for "due" as its online Word of the Day a while back.
azbikergirl said:
I agree. Good examples too Azbikergirl. As for 'Due to'...i go out of my way to NOT use it, for the exact reasons mentioned. It bugs the hell outta most people, and when you're trying to get published, the last thing you want is to piss people off.
firehorse said:
UK usage requires the 'of' in both cases. At least, that's the way that feels natural to me, as a UK user of the language...
jules said:
I second that. It sounds wrong to me in the same way 'math' instead of 'maths' does.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 886
- Reaction score
- 71
- Location
- not in AZ anymore...
- Website
- fantasyauthor.blogspot.com
In the US, we also tend to leave off the 'of' in going out the door. Maybe when 'out' is used instead of 'through' we omit the 'of'. ??
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
jules said:
I guess that's why I am confused. I had a British education until I came to the US...
Another thing I have trouble with is: "suffer" and "suffer from."
She suffered a heart attack.
She suffered from cancer.
UK-ers, please chime in, but I think Ray is correct in being confused 
"She suffered a heart attack" - I think (but I've been wrong before... like three posts ago) this is UK usage. One meaning of "suffer" is "to undergo or sustain." In that case, "from" is not necessary.
When I first moved to Toronto, I couldn't get used to the lack of articles:
"He was taken to hospital early this morning."
For Brits and Canucks, my punctuation within the speech marks is American. I know you'd put the full stop outside the end quote in the second paragraph.
It's very confusing to be educated in one style and then live with a different one (Ray from UK to US, I from US to Canada).
"She suffered a heart attack" - I think (but I've been wrong before... like three posts ago) this is UK usage. One meaning of "suffer" is "to undergo or sustain." In that case, "from" is not necessary.
When I first moved to Toronto, I couldn't get used to the lack of articles:
"He was taken to hospital early this morning."
For Brits and Canucks, my punctuation within the speech marks is American. I know you'd put the full stop outside the end quote in the second paragraph
.It's very confusing to be educated in one style and then live with a different one (Ray from UK to US, I from US to Canada).
Suffered
Just my ear, but "suffered" sounds like old usage to me. It's a word my grandparents used constantly, and my parents used some, but that I very seldom hear in this context today. What I hear probably 99% of the time is simply, "She had a heart attack."
maestrowork said:
Just my ear, but "suffered" sounds like old usage to me. It's a word my grandparents used constantly, and my parents used some, but that I very seldom hear in this context today. What I hear probably 99% of the time is simply, "She had a heart attack."
Articles
Lack of articles used to bug me to death, but I've grown used to it. I even like it. We'd say, "He was taken to jail/school/church early this morning," wouldn't we.
firehorse said:UK-ers, please chime in, but I think Ray is correct in being confused
"She suffered a heart attack" - I think (but I've been wrong before... like three posts ago) this is UK usage. One meaning of "suffer" is "to undergo or sustain." In that case, "from" is not necessary.
When I first moved to Toronto, I couldn't get used to the lack of articles:
"He was taken to hospital early this morning."
For Brits and Canucks, my punctuation within the speech marks is American. I know you'd put the full stop outside the end quote in the second paragraph
It's very confusing to be educated in one style and then live with a different one (Ray from UK to US, I from US to Canada).
Lack of articles used to bug me to death, but I've grown used to it. I even like it. We'd say, "He was taken to jail/school/church early this morning," wouldn't we.
We could do something bizarre, and consult a dictionary. The American Heritage
INTRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To feel pain or distress; sustain loss, injury, harm, or punishment. 2. To tolerate or endure evil, injury, pain, or death. See synonyms at bear1. 3. To appear at a disadvantage: “He suffers by comparison with his greater contemporary” (Albert C. Baugh).
TRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To undergo or sustain (something painful, injurious, or unpleasant): “Ordinary men have always had to suffer the history their leaders were making” (Herbert J. Muller). 2. To experience; undergo: suffer a change in staff. 3. To endure or bear; stand: would not suffer fools. 4. To permit; allow: “They were not suffered to aspire to so exalted a position as that of streetcar conductor” (Edmund S. Morgan).
USAGE NOTE: In general usage the preferred preposition after suffer is from, rather than with, in constructions such as He suffered from hypertension. Ninety-four percent of the Usage Panel found suffered with unacceptable in the preceding example. In medical usage suffer with is sometimes employed with reference to the pain or discomfort caused by a condition, while suffer from is used more broadly in reference to a condition, such as anemia, that is detrimental but not necessarily painful.
INTRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To feel pain or distress; sustain loss, injury, harm, or punishment. 2. To tolerate or endure evil, injury, pain, or death. See synonyms at bear1. 3. To appear at a disadvantage: “He suffers by comparison with his greater contemporary” (Albert C. Baugh).
TRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To undergo or sustain (something painful, injurious, or unpleasant): “Ordinary men have always had to suffer the history their leaders were making” (Herbert J. Muller). 2. To experience; undergo: suffer a change in staff. 3. To endure or bear; stand: would not suffer fools. 4. To permit; allow: “They were not suffered to aspire to so exalted a position as that of streetcar conductor” (Edmund S. Morgan).
USAGE NOTE: In general usage the preferred preposition after suffer is from, rather than with, in constructions such as He suffered from hypertension. Ninety-four percent of the Usage Panel found suffered with unacceptable in the preceding example. In medical usage suffer with is sometimes employed with reference to the pain or discomfort caused by a condition, while suffer from is used more broadly in reference to a condition, such as anemia, that is detrimental but not necessarily painful.
Americanisms
I always chuckle at the way you Americans will say: “He went out the door.” insisting that the 'of' I feel is grammatically necessary is unnecessary. Yet you will say: “He got off of...” which I also feel is most ungrammatical with that superfluous ‘of’.
American English is quite different from Standard English in form and usage not just in words. Try reading one of the Harry Potter books in its original English publisher’s version and then read the American publisher’s Americanised version. Apart from the obvious alteration of words like ‘sweets’ to ‘candy’ you will find a whole range of American expressions like ‘gotten’ which sound strange on Harry’s British lips.
I always chuckle at the way you Americans will say: “He went out the door.” insisting that the 'of' I feel is grammatically necessary is unnecessary. Yet you will say: “He got off of...” which I also feel is most ungrammatical with that superfluous ‘of’.
American English is quite different from Standard English in form and usage not just in words. Try reading one of the Harry Potter books in its original English publisher’s version and then read the American publisher’s Americanised version. Apart from the obvious alteration of words like ‘sweets’ to ‘candy’ you will find a whole range of American expressions like ‘gotten’ which sound strange on Harry’s British lips.
Usage
Dang, I thought American English was Standard English, and the English the English use was non-standard.
pdr said:
Dang, I thought American English was Standard English, and the English the English use was non-standard.
Nonsense, James. English, by definition, is the language of the mother country.
Yours is merely a quaint regional variation.
Yours is merely a quaint regional variation.
British English v's American English? Pah! How about us poor people in the Antipodes?
Australian English takes bits and pieces from both - I'm living in an apartment but I take out the garbage.
I am unable to tell when I'm using an Australianisms and when I'm using Standard English - except, of course, for the obvious ("g'day" comes to mind). I learnt recently that "I reckon" isn't Standard American, but is used often in the South.
Worryingly, unlike "g'day", I'm likely to use "I reckon". I can just picture it now: having written a book, it'll be laughed off agents' and publishers' desks for having (unintended) quaint regionalisms.
Australian English takes bits and pieces from both - I'm living in an apartment but I take out the garbage.
I am unable to tell when I'm using an Australianisms and when I'm using Standard English - except, of course, for the obvious ("g'day" comes to mind). I learnt recently that "I reckon" isn't Standard American, but is used often in the South.
Worryingly, unlike "g'day", I'm likely to use "I reckon". I can just picture it now: having written a book, it'll be laughed off agents' and publishers' desks for having (unintended) quaint regionalisms.
American English is Standard American.
Americans often call UK English "Queen's English," though that seems to have gone out of favo(u)r. Lately I hear it referred to as "Standard English" or (by Americans) "Standard British."
I'm with Katee; being in a country that takes bits and pieces from each is difficult.
Writing Idol entries, I've noticed I pay particular attention to words that have different meanings around the world. For example, for an American/Canadian audience, I'd think nothing of mentioning corduroy pants. To Brits, that means corduroy underwear. Though 'trousers' is rarely used in the US, at least it conveys a consistent image amoung readers.
Americans often call UK English "Queen's English," though that seems to have gone out of favo(u)r. Lately I hear it referred to as "Standard English" or (by Americans) "Standard British."
I'm with Katee; being in a country that takes bits and pieces from each is difficult.
Writing Idol entries, I've noticed I pay particular attention to words that have different meanings around the world. For example, for an American/Canadian audience, I'd think nothing of mentioning corduroy pants. To Brits, that means corduroy underwear. Though 'trousers' is rarely used in the US, at least it conveys a consistent image amoung readers.
- Status