Re: Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth
On 23 Oct, 03:37, "William A. T. Clark" <clarknos...@masceng.ohio-
state.edu> wrote:
> In article ,
>
> freeireland wrote:
> > On 22 Oct, 21:58, "William A. T. Clark"
> > wrote:
> > > In article ,
>
> . . snip, snip . .
>
>
>
> > > > As far as its use what about "Payable to", "Likely to", "Properly owed
> > > > to" or "to be".
>
> > > Completely different contexts. In your usage, "due to" is being used to
> > > mean "because of", as opposed to its proper meaning, which should take a
> > > noun, and not a notion extracted from the sentence.
>
> > Though you clearly said and I quote "'Due to' is really not correct in
> > any context in which it cannot be replaced by 'caused by'"
>
> No, I didn't. What I said was that "due to" should not be used in any
> context as a replacement for "because of".
"'Due to' is really not correct in any context in which it cannot be
replaced by "caused by". It does not mean 'because of', and so should
not be substituted for it. Hey, ho. "
Thats exactly what you said and in context. Are you schizophrenic as
it clearly looks like your correcting yourself now.
>
>
>
> > You did not specify a context you said "in ANY context in which it
> > cannot be replaced by 'caused by'", Cleary this is not correct is
> > it?
>
> No, it isn't, because I said "because of", not "caused by".
>
Again you post is there for all to see. See above for the direct
quote. and see that in fact that apart from the capitilisation of ANY
thats exactly what you claimed.
>
>
> > Clearly "Due to" can be replaced by "Payable to", "Likely to",
> > "Properly owed to" or "to be". Is this not correct?
>
> This is the correct usage of "due to", in which you will note that it
> takes a noun, and means something payable to another party.
>
>
>
> > For example
>
> > "Payment of all fees due to OUDCE is required in full before the first
> > day of the course."
>
> Indeed, and "due to" certainly does not substitute for "because of" in
> this (correct) usage.
>
So therefore "Due to" can be used when it cannot be replaced by
'caused by' contary to your claim and this is a direct quotation from
you, " 'Due to' is really not correct in any context in which it
cannot be
replaced by 'caused by'."
>
>
> >http://cpd.conted.ox.ac.uk/electronics/register.asp
>
> > Clearly "due to" in this context cannot be replaced by "caused by" can
> > it?
>
> You are clearly trying (at least I hope so) to be dumber than paint. If
> you had used "due to" in this correct manner, as an adjective qualifying
> a noun or pronoun, there would not have been an issue in the first
> place. It is when you use it instead as a compound preposition that it
> becomes wrong.
>
>
>
> > I have at not point claimed my grammar or spelling was correct though
> > clearly your explanation of the use of "due to" is incorrect!
>
> Not based on anything you have some up with! You still seem to be unable
> to sort out the difference between the (incorrect) compound preposition,
> and an adjective. Please try harder.
More back tracking.
> > >
>
>
>
> > > > Maybe you should read "The New Fowler's Modern English Usage" edited
> > > > by R.W. Burchfield. Do you think this is published by the Oxford
> > > > University Press. hmmm
>
> > > Exactly where this description of correct usage comes from. Together
> > > with a lament that "due to" has incorrectly morphed into a compound
> > > preposition of late. (FMEU, 2nd edition, p.141)
>
> > None the less it can be replaced by "Payable to", "Likely to",
> > "Properly owed to" or "to be" can it not?
>
> Totally different form - again figure out the difference between and
> adjective and a compound preposition.
>
I never claimed otherwise, what I did said was your claim "'Due to' is
really not correct in any context in which it cannot be
replaced by "caused by'", is simply inccorrect is it not?
>
>
> > Fowler's objection was as far back as 1926. So again I ask when did
> > the English language for you stop evolving?
>
> > "due to, as prepositional phr. = owing to.
> > Described as 'erroneous' by W. A. Craigie in the Dict. of Amer.
> > Eng., and said by H. W. Fowler in Mod. Eng. Usage (1926) to be 'often
> > used by the illiterate as though it had passed, like owing to, into a
> > mere compound preposition', this use is now widely current though
> > still firmly rejected by many grammarians. "
>
> Thank you.
>
Then why has does the Oxford English dictionary have the text "due to,
as prepositional phr. = owing to". Why does it define it as a
prepostitional phrase?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > It gives an example from the Times
>
> > "1955 Times 25 July, Largely due to the defence efforts of the Western
> > Powers, Europe was in a state of stalemate."
>
> > Oxford English Dictionary
>
> > Due to and owing to mean just what because of means. All three are
> > prepositions. Owing to fought and won its way to respectability a good
> > while ago, and now due to has almost won its battle, although there is
> > a residue of conservative unhappiness over it when it does not follow
> > a linking verb, as in He arrived late, due to a flat tire. Some Edited
> > English and Oratorical speech will still avoid such uses, but at all
> > other levels all three locutions are Standard: Because of [owing to,
> > due to] his having sprained his ankle, he walked with a cane. Because
> > of [owing to, due to] his sprained ankle, he walked with a cane.
>
> >http://www.bartleby.com/68/75/2075.html
>
> > "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. "
>
> Better to say "the concert was cancelled because of the rain". There,
> that didn't hurt, did it?
>
Though clearly you miss this point, "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."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > American Heritage Dictionary
>
> > "Due to as a prepositional phrase meaning "because of, owing to" has
> > been in use since the 14th century: Due to the sudden rainstorm, the
> > picnic was moved indoors. Some object to this use on the grounds that
> > due is historically an adjective and thus should be used only
> > predicatively in constructions like The delay was due to electrical
> > failure. Despite such objections, due to occurs commonly as a compound
> > preposition and is standard in all varieties of speech and writing."
>
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/due%20to
>
> > "Main Entry: due to
> > Function: preposition
> > Date: 1897
> > : as a result of : because of <due to the complaints of uptight
> > parents...he lost his job - Herbert Gold>
> > 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."
>
> The language is still "English".
>
>
>
> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/due%20to
>
> >http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=RA3-PA375&lpg=RA3-PA...
> > 2due%22%22compoundꚷꦢ좭誉%22&source=web&ots=nXyShmw3Y3&sig=b9-t61BJbv
> > uGPt-V-UvbFDZfEAo
>
> > > > Do you think there are gramarians out there who believe "Due to"
> > > > should never be used at all?
>
> No, it should be used as an adjective. Simple.
>
Sorry I have quoted several dictionaries claiming it can be used as a
preposition.
>
>
> > > The source you refer to quotes the Concise Oxford Dictionary of 1964 as
> > > describing the use of "due to" for "because of" as "incorrect", and adds
> > > "it is now as common as can be, though only, if the view taken in this
> > > article is correct, among the illiterate".
>
> > > Welcome to the club.
>
> > Clearly you too must join that club as you clearly believed it could
> > only be replaced by "caused by" in any context. Grammar police
> > sacking offence!
>
> You are nuts. Completely nuts. You have not understood one word of this
> exchange, and you insist on contradicting yourself right, left, and
> center. Sucks to be you.
>
>
Complete and utter nonsense, I have don't nothing other than directly
quote dicitionaries on the meaning of "Due to", the bast majority of
which believe it is completely acceptable in modern English to use as
a preposition.
On the BBC's learning english web site it claims
"Due to and owing to are similar in meaning to on account of and
because of. They are all prepositions used with noun phrases and are
often used interchangeably. They indicate that something happened as a
result of something or introduce the reason for something happening".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv56.shtml
The BBC, Merriam-webster dictionary, Dictionary.com, American Heritage
Dictionary, Bartleby, Hutchinson Dictionaries, and yes the Oxford
dictionary as well.
http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=RA3-PA374&vq=due&sig=P8OceGxTDttasKnyGFZPgfpyHis
Page 374.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage clearly gives shows how
"Due to" and "owing to" evolved and are now generally accepted as
prepositions.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Clearly you are not the master of grammar you pretend to be? Its one
> > > > thing to just type away without a care for grammar, though its another
> > > > to appoint yourself as grammatical police be critical or others, while
> > > > misspelling words and then making incorrect statements about more
> > > > subtle grammar such as "Due to". Do you have no commonsense at all?
>
> > > See above. Nice try, though.
>
> > > > > You might make a more credible case for "baiting" if the rest of your
> > > > > posts were not such a wholesale affront to the English language. With a
> > > > > track record like yours, none of the above rings remotely true.
>
> > > > Well its quite obvious I think after all when you look back at it, its
> > > > blatent. Though I was waiting for the mother putdown, I am so
> > > > disappointed! At least I predicted your response quite accurately.
>
> > > The hard part is really knowing where to start, "its" so "blatent".
>
> > Come on you certainly spotted those ones. Its in the word Blatant how
> > could you miss it?
>
> > > > Though you must be uneducated otherwise how could you come up with
> > > > "Cantauries". What an affront to the English language! Or is that part
> > > > of your ebonics revolution.
>
> > > > > Now, how about the wager?
>
> > > > Ok I'll wager your claim "'Due to' is really not correct in any
> > > > context in which it cannot be replaced by 'caused by'" is infact
> > > > incorrect.
>
> > > Another feeble attempt to move the goal posts - the wager was about me
> > > having a degree from Oxford. Now, can you put your money where your
> > > mouth is, or are you all hat and no cattle, as they say in Texas?
>
> > > I might be bluffing, you know.
>
> > lol, is this a school playground, was it oxford primary school you
> > attended, and playing doctors and nurses is something different
> > altogether.
>
> OK, put your money where your mouth is, and we will find out, won't we?
> How about $100 says I have a degree from Oxford? Want to call my bluff?
> If not, then you unreservedly withdraw your childish insult.
Really how would you transfer the cash to me? Do you think its likely
I will give you my bank account number, address or anything that could
be used to identify me. The email address for this google account is a
hotmail account I never use. I open it once a week and close it just
to keep it active. How much commonsense do you have. Con-men have a
saying there is one born every minute.
If you want to prove me wrong then do it?
>
> Well, do you have the cojones?
Ok give me your bank account number and I will transfer the money now!
>
> William Clark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:02:53 -0700
author: freeireland
|
