|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: "Due to" (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
Prescriptivist, eh?
Per AHD4:
"Usage Note: 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 [italics mine."
|
Aug 19 '09
8:29 am PDT
|
|
"Due to" (Reply to this comment)
by relayer71
"YES: Due to the weather, I had to calculate the perimeter of a square."
Well, actually, that's not correct -- unless you really mean to say that "I" was "due to the weather."
This is probably the most misused phrase in modern English. "Due to" serves a very specific linguistic function. It is NOT a synonym for "because of."
"Due to" is an adjective phrase that almost always follows a form of the verb "to be." It functions the same way a predicate adjective does. You're right that it means "caused by," but you have to take the *entire phrase* into consideration. It's not modifying "the weather." That's part of the "due to" phrase. It's incorrectly modifying "I." "Due to" answers what; "because of" answers why. Thus, you want to say, "Because of the weather, I had to calculate the perimeter of a square." You could also say "My calculation was due to the weather." But the sentence as written is nonsensical.
|
Aug 18 '09
11:04 am PDT
|
|
Re: Great Advice. (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
Your welcome. New ones come out periodically, so keep your eyes pealed as I'm sure they'll peak your interest.
-snort-
R
|
Jan 23 '06
6:04 am PST
|
|
Great Advice. (Reply to this comment)
by ladyconsumer
Note that I didn't say "great adviSe" That mistake is one of my pet peeves in writing.
I'm late to this party, as usual, but wanted to say "thanks" for writing these grammar pieces!
Mona
|
Jan 22 '06
4:58 pm PST
|
|
Re: Another mistake the spellchecker won't catch.... (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
A common error, indeed, though not a homonym. tGC discussed this error and a number of similar misspellings in "To E or not to E," at http://www.epinions.com/content_3844644996 - the difference between "loath" and "loathe," "breath" and "breathe," "choose" and "chose," and - of course - "lose" and "loose." Didn't get around to the difference between "breaks" and "brakes," though...
Cheers,
R
|
Sep 04 '05
7:21 am PDT
|
|
Another mistake the spellchecker won't catch.... (Reply to this comment)
by dianapinions
is lose/loose. It seems that every other Epinions review I read mentions something about "loosing" weight or "loosing" a possession. Reading them all, I'm "loosing" my mind! (and there's not much left to "loose"). I just want to shout: "Would you please LOOSE the extra "O"!"
Thanks for letting me get that off my chest. I feel better now.
Diana
|
Sep 03 '05
10:38 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Another commonly abused pair of words.. (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
Yes, it's on my list. Soon, mis-users will get their just desserts. Err, deserts.
R
|
Dec 21 '04
9:34 am PST
|
|
Re: I'm a little late, but... (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
Better late than never!
I imagine that the "simplified" grammar and spelling of the 'Net and email are coming home to bite people in the rear ends. Maybe there's hope yet!
Keep fighting the good fight.
R
|
Oct 17 '03
7:14 am PDT
|
|
I'm a little late, but... (Reply to this comment)
by slarter
... I wholeheartedly agree. Thank goodness for someone standing up for grammar on the internet. I refuse to dumb down my grammar in e-mails or anything else. I spent a good deal of time developing my vocabulary, so they're's no way I'm giving it up for convenience's sake.
Cheers!
SL
|
Oct 16 '03
1:21 pm PDT
|
|
Re: How about this (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
Yes, that's an ugly one, isn't it. I saw an example of that just yesterday, something about "going on a trip with my wife and I."
Shudder.
Thanks for the input, LG.
scmrak
|
Feb 06 '03
9:39 am PST
|
|
How about this (Reply to this comment)
by Lobstergirl
pet peeve:
"You can return the book to Bob or I."
I am always stunned to hear this from even the most well educated people.
|
Jan 21 '03
2:46 am PST
|
|
Re: I too... (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
Sort of like being "half pregnant," eh? Shudder...
That particular point will probably show up somewhere down the line combined with other poor constructions, such as one of my jaw-clenchers, "everybody isn't as..."
Yours grammarily,
scmrak
|
Jan 14 '03
5:04 am PST
|
|
I too... (Reply to this comment)
by mattygroves
...have done a grammar rant op (link on my profile page...:)
My pet peeve is 'very' unique - it either IS unique, or it isn't! GRRRR!
Cheers, Kate
|
Jan 13 '03
6:51 am PST
|
|
Re: Gives new meaning to the... (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
watch your email, son!
Rex
|
Jan 08 '03
2:29 pm PST
|
|
Gives new meaning to the... (Reply to this comment)
by NFP
...word "homophobia" -- a spellchecker's fear of homonyms.
cheers, Rex.
nick
|
Jan 08 '03
1:59 pm PST
|
|
Re: Can I join in the diatribe? (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
You're welcome to join; you're also welcome to offer suggestions. Either alternative strikes a blow for better writing!
Rex
|
Jan 08 '03
5:37 am PST
|
|
Re: @[xxxx]:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::> (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
Shouldn't amaze you - the boss very likely didn't get there because s/he's smarter or better educated...
If you think that snippet's hard to read, look at the whole thing (link at bottom of review): it hurts your eyes!
Thanks for the comment.
scmrak
|
Jan 08 '03
5:36 am PST
|
|
Re: Why it pays to proofread. (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
"Use" you, "sue" you; what's the difference to a lawyer?! :)
Thanks for the visit and comment, 'talia.
Rex
|
Jan 08 '03
5:34 am PST
|
|
Re: A couple more (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
Further/farther I'll add to my list - but bring vs. take always strikes me as a regionalism (not unlike the New Yorker's "wait on line" instead of "wait in line"). Where a Midwesterner might say "Take your car back to the dealer," many from the Northeast say, "Bring your car back to the dealer." While the difference is more clear when one says, "bring it to me; take it to her," it becomes cloudy when the relative position of the speaker is less well-defined.
Nonetheless, point well taken - hope you had a great vacation!
Rex
|
Jan 08 '03
5:33 am PST
|
|
Re: Looking forward to the next installment. (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
In the world of grammarians, I consider myself a descriptive prescriptivist: I know that language must evolve to survive, but I refuse to believe the doctrine of "it's in use, so it must therefore be allowed."
Indeed, English must be one of the most difficult languages to learn; what with its undependable spelling and pronunciation rules, its bizarre pronouns, and the plethora of irregular verbs (though there are fewer tenses than other languages). Still, those oddball pronunciations (because of the number of borrowed words) allow it a vocabulary that's larger than many other languages.
As I've noted elsewhere, those who are composing in English as non-native speakers have my undying admiration. Far too few Americans have taken the effort to learn a second language at all, much less well enough to write in it.
Thanks for the comments,
scmrak
|
Jan 08 '03
5:28 am PST
|
|
Re: If only... (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
One can only imagine the consequences! Indeed, sigh...
scmrak
|
Jan 08 '03
5:20 am PST
|
|
Re: Hay their... (Reply to this comment)
by scmrak
Tanks!
scmrak
|
Jan 08 '03
5:19 am PST
|
|
Can I join in the diatribe? (Reply to this comment)
by dramastef
Or just offer you suggestions?
Great job!
~Stefanie
|
Jan 08 '03
5:15 am PST
|
|
@[xxxx]:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::> (Reply to this comment)
by flamepillar
It's amazing how hard that poem is to read! It also amazes me that my own boss doesn't even know the difference between "your" and "you're", when we were taught that in the second grade.
|
Jan 08 '03
3:53 am PST
|
|
Why it pays to proofread. (Reply to this comment)
by naphtalia
Besides homonyms, spellcheckers also don't catch typos when you change one word for another.
As the lawyer learned when he sent out a letter to a bookkeeping company saying:
"We are planning to sue you in the coming year."
instead of
"We are planning to use you in the coming year."
Great review.
talia
|
Jan 07 '03
9:39 pm PST
|
|
A couple more (Reply to this comment)
by jo.com
further/farther
bring/take
jo
|
Jan 07 '03
8:42 pm PST
|
|
Looking forward to the next installment. (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
And I have to confess: I can be somewhat permissive when it comes to grammar and spelling on epinions. Especially grammar since I have no problem with something that may be technically wrong but is still understandable. And in dealing with those to whom English is not a first language I'm always extra patient--knowing how it feels to be on the other side. Heck, even in English I make typos.
On the other hand. The fact that mistakes can be understandable doesn't mean effort should not be spent in educating against them. And here at epinions such lessons could be helpful if they only find their audience (here's where everyone nods ans says "Yeah, they need to work on that. I'm ok.").
|
Jan 07 '03
2:49 pm PST
|
|
If only... (Reply to this comment)
by theeye
more people cared. Sigh.
|
Jan 07 '03
11:09 am PST
|
|
Hay their... (Reply to this comment)
by katybrighteyes
Yew dew half won grate revue hear!
Lovett!
Katy :o)
|
Jan 07 '03
10:57 am PST
|
|
|
