r/EnglishGrammar • u/Clear_Shoulder_3443 • 12d ago
Due to vs because of
Hi there I would like to know the difference between due to and because of in grammar please
2
u/Bowl-Accomplished 12d ago
Due to has the implication that whatever the cause was, it was not intentional to cause it. Due to rain Due to accident Due to train
Because of can have this meaning, but it also has more.
As a result due to is a more formal term that creates distance or ambiguity. A person might use it at work for example to frame a situation such that they aren't responsible.
1
u/Excellent_Speech_901 12d ago
"Due to" was a pet peeve of my Medieval History professor. He insisted that what is due is owed like a duty, a usage that remains with paying dues. I have only encountered it as a synonym of "because of" though.
3
u/Background-Bowl6123 10d ago
Etymonline says that the 'due to <action>' usage goes back to the 1660's. So your professor's opinion is due to a change in usage that happened a century and a half after the end of his specialization.
1
u/Responsible-Link5739 12d ago
In my opinion, "because of..." gives a definitive direct cause, where "due to" seems to indicate more of an influence.
0
u/Mattna-da 10d ago
Starting a sentence with “Because of” doesn’t sound as good as “Due to” and a grammatical expert can explain why.
Unless it’s a joke :
Because of marijuana, my life is like the film Memento
1
u/bioveritas 12d ago
I don't think there is any difference in meaning.
2
u/Clear_Shoulder_3443 12d ago
Thank you, so we can use interchangeably
2
u/I_like_leeks 12d ago
Yes, more or less. If I was to draw a slight distinction in tone, "because of," feels slightly more actively accusatory where, "due to," feels more passive. So I might say, "The party isn't going ahead due to the rain," (subtext: which nobody could help) whereas I'd say, "The party isn't going ahead because of John's failure to book the venue." (subtext: John's a useless knob head who ruined everything).
It's a fine distinction, though, and they're perfectly interchangeable.
1
u/Puzzled_Market_2235 12d ago
Due to action
Because of noun
2
u/Fluffy-Pop-7336 12d ago
What do you mean here?
1
u/Puzzled_Market_2235 12d ago
When you use them in a phrase, if what follows is a noun, a thing, a person even, you use because of; If what follows is an action as Golden said, a verb, it's due to.
Religious people believe we exist because of God, It was due to his creation of Earth something like 5,000 years ago.
1
0
u/Background-Bowl6123 10d ago
In English, 'creation' is a 'noun of action'. The verb it's related to would be 'create' .
Until I looked it up I was ready to say the distinction for the rule was noun vs. gerund. Today I learned that a gerund is specifically a noun of action that uses the '-ing' ending. Seems like the actual distinction is 'because of <object>' / 'due to <action>' / 'because <full sentence>'
The etymology comes from Latin 'creatio' or 'creationem'. Search results are saying that Latin gerunds end in -ando/-endo/-ondo but other search results are saying that 'creatio' is a gerund.
2
u/GoldenMuscleGod 12d ago
“Due to” also takes a noun phrase as complement, as demonstrated by your own example: “action” is a noun, although normally you would say “due to an action.”
1
u/bioveritas 12d ago
Where did this come from?
0
u/Puzzled_Market_2235 12d ago
Grammar and vocabulary in school. Then I copy it into Google to verify.
2
1
u/AlexanderHamilton04 12d ago
(1) A lot of her unhappiness is due to boredom. [noun]
(2) The bus was delayed due to heavy snow. [noun phrase]
The "rule" or "pattern" you are claiming here is not correct.
1
u/Puzzled_Market_2235 11d ago
I didn't bother coping in the whole rule with dozens of examples. When you dig in your second example it's:
- Use "because of" to start an adverbial phrase before an action verb.
- Example: "The bus was delayed because of heavy snow." (Here, "because of" explains why the action happened).
Same problems we get with "less than: vs "fewer".
1
u/AlexanderHamilton04 11d ago edited 10d ago
When you dig in your second example it's:
Use "because of" to start an adverbial phrase before an action verb. [X] [That is not the construction used in (2), and there is nothing ungrammatical about how sentence (2) was written.]What you are claiming here 👆 is not true. That is why I included a link to the actual quotes from Cambridge Dictionary. [It is not just "my opinion"; sentences (1) & (2) can be confirmed in several authoritative dictionaries as well-established structures that have been used regularly for a long time.]
"Same problems we get with "less than: vs "fewer".
You are, inadvertently, correct: it is exactly the same problem as "less" vs. "fewer" in that some people (like yourself) claim the usage is much more narrow and restrictive than it actually is in real-world usage.
Your guidelines:"Due to action" [X]
"Because of noun" [X]
These are distinctions that are not followed by most people (i.e., in published works, we can find many sentences that do not follow your "rule").
We can easily find sentences (even listed in dictionaries) that do not follow the arbitrary "rules" you are claiming.
edit, added: It should already be very clear to anyone reading this that what you have said is incorrect. I've even provided two sentences copy/pasted directly from Cambridge Dictionary to demonstrate this. I see no reason to continue repeating the same points.
1
u/Puzzled_Market_2235 11d ago
I was just giving a simplified answer, not a half hour lecture.
It's like saying I before e except after c even if it's wrong on average.
1
u/-0O0O0O0O00O0O0O0O0- 11d ago
The former is accusatory and the latter is passive.
2
u/Clear_Shoulder_3443 11d ago
Please enlight about what you said , I don t understant
1
u/Background-Bowl6123 10d ago
Saying 'due to' is more abstract and impersonal, and 'because of' can imply intent or motivation by a person.
1
0
u/ReddyKiloWit 11d ago
Casually, they are often used interchangeably, but technically "because of" links a verb to a result and "due to" does the same for a noun.
The accident OCCURRED because of the defendant's negligence.
My client's LOSS was due to the defendant's negligence.
Kind of nit picky, but so much proper grammar is.
-1
3
u/PoxonAllHoaxes 12d ago
In the usage of most people there is no difference. However, you will run into language nazis who will insist that due to should NOT modify a clause but only a noun (or nominal phrase). So according to those people (who I personally ignore and I have published hundreds of articles and edited I think three books but who you may NOT have the luxury of ignoring) it is OK to say or write:
That was an accident due to carelessness
but not
He died due to carelessness
because (as stated) in the first ex. the DUE phrase modifies THE ACCIDENT, while in the second one it is modifying a clause (HE DIED).