Because v. Due to

[ghong14]

I am a little confused about the distinction between Due to and Because.

I understand that due to is used to modify nouns. And that because modifies clauses and ideas and not nouns.

For example: I was two hours late to the meeting because of the six mile traffic, which was due to a brush fire.

Here what is the clause that because is modifying? I was 2 hours late to the meeting?

I get confused when the sentence becomes longer. Such as: I was late to work because a truck flipped over on the road. Is because then modifying I was late to work or a truck flipped over on the road?

The same applies to due to. I suffered a fracture due to the fall. Is due to modifying the fracture or the fall?

[RonPurewal]

I am a little confused about the distinction between Due to and Because.

I understand that due to is used to modify nouns. And that because modifies clauses and ideas and not nouns.

It seems you're actually not confused. This is the deal.

For example: I was two hours late to the meeting because of the six mile traffic, which was due to a brush fire.

Here what is the clause that because is modifying? I was 2 hours late to the meeting?

Yes.

I get confused when the sentence becomes longer. Such as: I was late to work because a truck flipped over on the road. Is because then modifying I was late to work or a truck flipped over on the road?

Now I'm the one who's confused -- you mention confusion "when the sentence becomes longer", but this sentence is shorter than your first example. Hmm?

"Because a truck flipped over" IS a modifier. It's a unit. It's not just "because"; it's "because xxxxx".
It describes why I was late to work.

The same applies to due to. I suffered a fracture due to the fall. Is due to modifying the fracture or the fall?

"Due to the fall" IS a modifier. ("Due to" is not a modifier; it's the beginning of one.)
It modifies the fracture.

--

[RonPurewal]

Most importantly, it seems that you're not thinking about what these things mean. If that's the case, you're going to have major issues with SC.

Here's what I mean:
Modifiers describe things. That's their function -- to give you extra information about something.
If you know this, then it's obvious that "because" and "due to", by themselves, are not modifiers -- they don't give any information about anything!
"Because a truck flipped over" and "due to the fall", on the other hand, actually describe things. They give information.

[harpreet1205]

Hey Ron,

I hope the question is not absurd but I am confused about the usage of because and due to.

I understand that "because" is used to modify clauses and ideas and "due to" is used to modify noun..

But even the clauses contains noun so why is that we say because is used to modify clause...

To explain my question further I am stating an example


Because an oversupply of computer chips has sent prices plunging, the manufacturer has
announced that it will cut production by closing its factories for two days a month.

Here why can't I rewrite the underline part as
Due to plunging computer chip prices from an oversupply.

After all prices is a noun.

Could you please explain.

Thanks in advance..

[harpreet1205]

Also(modifier from original example omitted)

I was two hours late to the meeting due to the six mile traffic.
OR
I was two hours late to the meeting because of the six mile traffic.

If I go by the use of "due to" in case of noun.Can I say the first one is correct

[RonPurewal]

Hey Ron,

I hope the question is not absurd but I am confused about the usage of because and due to.

That doesn't appear to be the confusion. Rather, you appear to be confused between (a) what's IN a modifier and (b) what's DESCRIBED BY a modifier.

I understand that "because" is used to modify clauses and ideas and "due to" is used to modify noun..

"Because" and "due to", by themselves, ARE NOT modifiers. (If you understand that a "modifier" is an additional description that explains or describes something, then you'll already know this -- it's clear that these words by themselves can't describe anything.)

"Because xxxxx", where xxxxx is a sentence, is a single modifier.

"Because of xxxxx", where xxxxx is a noun (possibly with some modifiers of its own), is a single modifier.

"Due to xxxxx", where xxxxx is a noun (possibly with some modifiers of its own), is a single modifier.

Because an oversupply of computer chips has sent prices plunging, the manufacturer has
announced that it will cut production by closing its factories for two days a month.[/color]

The ENTIRE GREEN THING is a modifier.
The green thing explains the entire idea of the following sentence, as required.

Here why can't I rewrite the underline part as
Due to plunging computer chip prices from an oversupply.

If you replace the green thing with this thing, then you're obliged to describe the following noun, which is "the manufacturer".
The manufacturer is not due to plunging chip prices, so that's nonsense.

[RonPurewal]

I was two hours late to the meeting due to the six mile traffic.

The ENTIRE GREEN THING is a modifier.

It has to describe the noun "meeting".

Nonsense. A meeting is not "due to traffic".

I was two hours late to the meeting because of the six mile traffic.

Again, the ENTIRE GREEN THING is a modifier.

This time, it describes the entire preceding sentence/action/idea.

That makes perfect sentence, because the green thing is the reason why I was late to the meeting.

[harpreet1205]

Your explanation really helped.

Thanks a ton:)

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[HanzZ]

I was two hours late to the meeting due to the six mile traffic.

The ENTIRE GREEN THING is a modifier.

It has to describe the noun "meeting".

Nonsense. A meeting is not "due to traffic".

I was two hours late to the meeting because of the six mile traffic.

Again, the ENTIRE GREEN THING is a modifier.

This time, it describes the entire preceding sentence/action/idea.

That makes perfect sentence, because the green thing is the reason why I was late to the meeting.

---
Hi Ron,

Does this mean "due to" only modifies the noun it touches and "because/because of" only modifies the entire clause/idea, etc?

Thank you for your reply.

[RonPurewal]

Yes.

[tanwarkml]

I am a little confused about the distinction between Due to and Because.

I understand that ...

The same applies to due to. I suffered a fracture due to the fall. Is due to modifying the fracture or the fall?

I feel the last sentence is incorrect. It should be
"I suffered a fracture because of the fall"
It doesn't seem right if I replace 'due to' with 'caused by'. Also, if we replace it by 'because of', then it seems to modify the clause 'I suffered a fracture' (which, indeed, is the right way to use 'because of')

Although the below sentence might sound awkward, I understand this is the right way to use 'due to'

The fracture was due to the fall.
(The fracture was caused by the fall.)

Please explain, if I'm wrong.

[RonPurewal]

you're right.

but, if you'd read the entire thread before posting, you would have known that already.
(:

[AsadA969]

I was late to work because a truck flipped over on the road.

Ron,
I got the every explanation smoothly but a little confusion in the above sentence. you've said that "because a truck flipped over" IS a modifier. That means that there is no subject and verb in this sentence. Right?
But if I say "A truck" is a subject and "flipped over" is a verb, then the sentence will be a clause. If this is the clause then the intended meaning will be "ridiculous". So what?

[RonPurewal]

modifiers can contain subjects and verbs of their own, sure.

for many modifiers, in fact, this is actually obligatory.
e.g., in a which modifier, which is always the subject of a verb that's also part of the modifier.