0

I understand the simple distinction between "due to" ("adjectival") and "because of" (adverbial), but I get a little confused when the sentence includes modal or complex verbs. For example, could one write: "Participants may be excluded due to any of the following transgressions....."? ("due to follows "may be + excluded")

Or should one stick to a more strict "Participant exclusion may be due to any of the following transgressions...."?

Or is that even wrong, and they should both be "because of"?

This is NOT a duplicate of any other question because it addresses a particular use of "due to" that at least one response suggests is acceptable - but for reasons that actually add confusion!

Adrian
  • 1
  • Yes - same question. But this time I have an answer! – Adrian Oct 07 '15 at 17:33
  • Is it the right answer you were looking for? –  Oct 07 '15 at 17:39
  • Not certain. I am pursuing clarification. Can you assist? – Adrian Oct 07 '15 at 18:01
  • Not really, Sven. I am trying to ascertain if there is an exclusion to a rule I think I understand. That "due to" is adjectival and should follow some form of "to be". Matt, below, suggests that it is acceptable to use "due to" after a verb that isn't "to be" if the sentence is passive and conditional "Participants may be excluded due to XXX". Any ideas? – Adrian Oct 08 '15 at 15:35
  • @Adrian how is this sentence conditional? – michael_timofeev Oct 08 '15 at 16:59
  • Go check out this webpage...http://linguistech.ca/Tips+and+Tricks+-+Because+of+vs.+Due+to. This should help resolved your confusion. – michael_timofeev Oct 08 '15 at 17:05
  • Thanks Michael. That page doesn't help resolve my confusion. I know the rule (and the trick) specified there.

    It was suggested by Matt Campbell (see his answer below) that the use of "due to" in my example sentence was acceptable because it was written in the passive voice and was conditional - "Partcipants MAY BE EXCLUDED due to any of the following reasons". My own thoughts are that this is NOT an acceptable use, because "due to" does not directly follow the verb "to be" but, rather, follows a form of the verb "exclude".

     – Adrian Oct 09 '15 at 12:59
  • Also what Matt calls the "past perfect voice of to exclude" provides more confusion, as it looks like the passive simple future tense to me (may be - in the future - excluded).

    So - thoughts anyone?

     – Adrian Oct 09 '15 at 12:59

1 Answers1

-1

"Participants may be excluded due to any of the following transgressions..." is correct. This is because "be excluded" is the past perfect voice of "to exclude," with "transgressions," a noun, being associated with participants, not their actual state of exclusion (or of being excluded, to put it another way). The contest officials are the excluding agents, and are not even mentioned in the sentence. (Again, this sentence is in the passive voice, which for this occasion, is perfectly acceptable.) Use of the adjectival "due to" modifies the state of exclusion that a participant can be in.

This question is a tricky one because the actual state of exclusion is not directly mentioned as such, but implied as a possibility based on the use of the word "excluded," which is a verb form and not a noun. If this sentence were written in the active voice, the opportunity to use the adverbial "because of" becomes much more apparent.

Matt Campbell
  • 297
  • 1
  • 4
  • Thanks, Matt. But if I specifically referred to an exclusion criterion - "Participants may be excluded due to cheating", would your rationale be the same? Is the passive voice the reason for the acceptability of the sentence, such that "participants were excluded due to cheating" would be wrong?

    This is why I am confused!

     – Adrian Oct 07 '15 at 17:39
  • What are you saying? Reading this "answer" is like trying to read cipher text from an Enigma machine. – michael_timofeev Oct 08 '15 at 16:57
  • sigh... The OP asked which of the two approaches was correct. I answered the question and explained why. Sorry if some people cannot follow the explanation but this exchange is about the use of English, including the grammar, etc., thereof. If some people can't understand the technical words associated with English grammar, then I suggest rather than complain about same, they make use of a dictionary, or stay off the site entirely. – Matt Campbell Oct 08 '15 at 17:30
  • @MattCampbell are you kidding? – michael_timofeev Oct 08 '15 at 17:35
  • @michael_timofeev No, not at all. – Matt Campbell Oct 08 '15 at 17:38
  • @MattCampbell ok, I'm sorry. I'll go and check out the School House Rock grammar series so I can understand your answer. I really should stay off this site if I can't hang with everyone here. Looks like I have some homework to do. – michael_timofeev Oct 08 '15 at 17:45
  • @michael_timofeev LMAO! I enjoyed our exchange, Mike. Damn, I love the Internet! :-) Have a nice day. – Matt Campbell Oct 08 '15 at 17:47
  • Matt, apologies, but is not "may be excluded" the passive future tense of "to exclude" - with a conditional modal verb "may"?

    I still don't get how this can be an example of correct use of "due to", because it is not following a form of the verb "to be" but, rather, a passive tense of the verb "exclude".

    Any more input would be gratefully accepted.

     – Adrian Oct 09 '15 at 13:35