Re: Due To: the real story

Subject: Re: Due To: the real story
From: "Dave L. Meek's User Account" <dave -at- ROGUE -dot- DISC-SYNERGY -dot- COM>
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 15:18:41 -0700

>Was this intended to refute Strunk and White or to support their argument?
> Surely "In correct use synonymous with attributable to" and "'due to' and
> 'attributable' are interchangeable and equally valid" mean the same thing.
Note
> that Strunk and White contrast the "[l]oosely used" through, because of, or
> owing to constructions with the "correct use" as synonymous with attributable
> to.

>Am I missing something?

>Stephen P. Victor svictor -at- lgc -dot- com

My post was intended to support Strunk and White, which, I
thought, was obvious.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Dave Meek "Imagine Whirled Peas"


Previous by Author: Re: Due To: the real story
Next by Author: Re: What's the perfect test?
Previous by Thread: Re: Due To: the real story
Next by Thread: Re: Due To: the real story


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads