TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Due To: the real story From:"Dave L. Meek's User Account" <dave -at- ROGUE -dot- DISC-SYNERGY -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 25 May 1995 09:57:36 -0700
>Here's what Strunk and White have to say:
>"Due to. Loosely used for through, because of, or owing to in adverbial
phrases.
>He lost the first game due to carelessness.
>He lost the first game because of carelessness.
>In correct use synonymous with attributable to: 'The accident was due to bad
> weather'; 'losses due to preventable fires.'"
Roy Copperud, in *American Usage and Style: the Consensus*,
writes:
"The [due to] distinction is hairsplitting, and cannot be defended
on grammatical grounds."
He then illustrates with the following sentence:
"Asian flu is due to a virus."
where "because of," "owing to," and "through" are clearly
impossible. In this instance, "due to" and "attributable" are
interchangeable and equally valid.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Dave Meek "Imagine Whirled Peas"
