On 23 Oct, 12:04, "William A. T. Clark" <clarknos...@masceng.ohio-
state.edu> wrote:
> In article ,
>
>
>
>  freeireland  wrote:
> > 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.
>
> No, I am correcting you, which seems to be a full time occupation. It is
> perfectly true that "due to" is not a substitute for "because of".
>

Though again thats a different point I talk about latter. You claimed,
"'Due to' is really not correct in any context in which it cannot be
replaced by "caused by".

"Payment of all fees due to OUDCE is required in full before the first
day of the course."

How can you accept this statement which I referenced earlier as
correct, even though it is in a context in which "Due to" cannot be
replaced by "caused by".

What can you simply not accept your original claim was wrong?


>
>
>
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > > 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.
>
> No, more explaining over and over again something that should be obvious
> to anyone with one neurone firing.

The claim 'Due to' is really not correct in any context in which it
cannot be replaced by "caused by", is actually not correct is it? At
least I have one firing?

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > 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?
>

Why are you avoiding this like the plague? Why can you not simply
admitt the statement is incorrect?


> > > > 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.
>
> > > > "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".
>
> > > > > > 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.
>
> It still remains a grammatically incorrect usage.
>

Maybe so, though your claim was wrong was it not?

>
>
>
>
> > > > > 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.

Ok of all the "bast majority" of "dicitionaraies" (maybe you should
use one, though I am clearly waiting for the plant claim, you are
predictible) which one says it incorrect?

"Function: preposition"

"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."

merriam-webster dictionary on "Due to".



>
> > > > > > > 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?
>
> I will write you a check and mail it if I cannot prove my claim. Are we
> on?

You think I would give you or anyone my address on here? Do you have
no commonsense at all?

>
>
>
> > > Well, do you have the cojones?
>
> > Ok give me your bank account number and I will transfer the money now!
>
> OK, so you are a welsher. At least everyone can see it now.

Ok who did I swindle? Or is that just another unsupported allegation.


So the questions I ask are ?

1. How can someone who types "bast majority" ,  "dicitionaraies" and
"cantauries" be critical of the literacy of anyone else?

2 Why can you simply not admitt that "'Due to' is really not correct
in any context in which it cannot be replaced by "caused by", is
infact wrong. For example the sentence "Payment of all fees due to
OUDCE is required in full before the first day of the course"
disproves that claim.

3 "Due to" is widley accepted by most major dictionaries,  and even
the BBC as acceptable to be used as a preposition. English is an
evolving language, not something frozen in 1926! What next English
grammar according to Shakespeare.

4 Grammar or spelling flaming is not advised as at some stage the
Flamer makes a grammar or spelling mistake and looks rather foolish.


The claims you have made are recorded on this forum for all to see, as
are the quotations I have made which disprove your claims. Using
unimaginative insults proves nothing and it is clear you are avoiding
admitting you where wrong, this is predictiable and used often on
these forums, though it never works.


>
> William Clark