This grammarian has foxed me

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Frank Welsh's comments (Letters, June 21) on the poor quality of English in the Harry Potter books is borne out by the second sentence of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: "...the use of hosepipes had been banned due to drought."

JK Rowling may not know that "due" when used as an adverb means "exactly", not "owing to", but her editors at Bloomsbury should.

Neil Clark
Birmingham

from http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,982935,00.html

I thought I understood the traditionally held distinction between 'due to' and 'owing to' but this smartarsed letter has confused me further. I thought JKR's usage was fine, because the 'due to' is referring to a nounal phrase (ie. 'the use of hosepipes'). Whereas "We weren't allowed to use hosepipes, due to drought" would be wrong. Collins says the whole thing is an anachronism anyway, but I can't follow Mr Clark's rules.

And anyway "Frank Welsh's comments [...] is borne out by'? WTF?

Can anyone explain?

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 16:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Neil Clark is a wanker.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 16:58 (twenty-two years ago)

"that the use of hosepipes is banned is due to drought" is correct

with only v.occasional exceptions, publishers expect writers to proof their own copy nowadays

bloomsbury let m.prenderg4st's the ambient century through, so i guess no one who can actually read is employed there

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:12 (twenty-two years ago)

y'know, grammar is really a lame thing and not at all essential to language/communication.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Such objectivity, Dan!

But seriously, the joy of the English language is that words can be used in any way, shape or form: Rowling DID use 'due to' correctly; Clark is being an idiot (or is he just frustrated that HE isn't making the mega-bucks?)

Plenty of times I've used 'due to' when chatting to people, and I was talking in the context of 'owing' something.

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Such objectivity, Dan!

Hey, N. wanted an explanation; I figured why not cut to the chase and call it out?

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:21 (twenty-two years ago)

rowling's use is technically wrong (tho so common now as to be i suspect no longer enforceable) (mark s hopes his mom never reads this): "due to" (in this sense) requires is/was etc, which "owing to" doesn't...

clark's letter is extremely badly expressed, owing to smart-aleck sarcasm overkill (= dan ist korrekt)

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:27 (twenty-two years ago)

You might say Clark was hoisted on his own petard.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:29 (twenty-two years ago)

(fowler called this "a losing battle" in 1965, quoting a speech by the Queen on the opening of the Canadian Parliament, 1957)

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Barbara Wallraff, in The Atlantic:

"Why is owing to allowed where due to is not? It has been in use much longer in such prepositional contexts, due having been nothing more than an ordinary adjective ("Repairs are certainly due") a century ago. Those precisians who fifty or thirty years ago denounced the preposition due to as an arriviste have tainted its reputation."

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:39 (twenty-two years ago)

(I had never actually heard of this rule at all until just now.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Get yr taint on.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:41 (twenty-two years ago)

i have forensic proof of neil clark's diminutive johnson. im still not convinced by the whole harry potter thing in general though. seems a bit like islington coffee table material to me...

― Bob Shaw (Bob Shaw), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:42 (twenty-two years ago)

I cannot for the life of me fathom how a snotty grammarian could fail to carefully proofread his own complaint. It's not as if turnabout is unexpected.

I have never heard of this due to / owing to distinction. The snotty grammarian in me wants to point at Horace's first post, but the fact that I know he meant "usage" and not "grammar" (and especially not "grammar" in the linguistic sense) is his whole point anyway.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Mark s has refreshed the memory of my old English teacher's words for me. The years had confused them. I understand the rule (bogus or not) now.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:49 (twenty-two years ago)

fowler is utterly reliable abt the fact that arguments (and disdain) exist, concerning usage: the logic of his solutions is as a whole not much more secure than BCZ I SAY SO FUXORS, JEEZ, LADY IF U HAF 2 ASK etc

(ie he reverses his position on this, pretty much, between the 1929 and the 1965 edition of MODERN ENGLISH USAGE)

"owing to" i think gets its easy bye to prior approval bcz of its latinate feel — grammarians ALL being classicists in the 19th C
("due to" is in other words not a crime against english so much as a crime against latin hence yada yada)

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 17:51 (twenty-two years ago)

We need Viking grammarians to stamp out our crimes against Saxon grammar.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:10 (twenty-two years ago)

("grammarian" = "one who fancies Gramma") (this thread has entered a new realm of wrongness)

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Major ew...

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:12 (twenty-two years ago)

haha if viking = norman than that's exactly what happened nas!

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:15 (twenty-two years ago)

er, nabs, i mean

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:15 (twenty-two years ago)

NAS IS A GRAMMAR FIEND

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:21 (twenty-two years ago)

http://thadweb.com/rundmc/lyricists/nas.jpg

― TOO LATE (nabisco), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 18:22 (twenty-two years ago)

If the worst 'error' you can find in a book is something that stopped being 'wrong' decades ago, you may as well give up. This fule is a smug arsehole.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 24 June 2003 19:34 (twenty-two years ago)

We need Saxon grammarians to stamp out the pollutions (793AD-present) of the Vikings.

― kieran, Tuesday, 24 June 2003 19:54 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.