Re: Due To: the real story

[Stephen Victor <svictor -at- LGC -dot- COM>]

> >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"


Was this intended to refute Strunk and White or to support their argument?
 Surely "In correct use synonymous with attributable to" and "'due to' and
 'attributable' are interchangeable and equally valid" mean the same thing. Note
 that Strunk and White contrast the "[l]oosely used" through, because of, or
 owing to constructions with the "correct use" as synonymous with attributable
 to.

Am I missing something?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen P. Victor                                               svictor -at- lgc -dot- com
Landmark Graphics Corporation                http://www.cda.ulpgc.es/steve.html
15150 Memorial Drive
Houston, TX 77009 USA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------