Due to a lack of attention or understanding of English grammar, many Americans have, for several generations, used the adjective due as part of a prepositional phrase to introduce adverbial elements- to the disapproval of some strict grammarians. Although I prefer their prescription, for reasons of style, I must oppose their claim to correctness, on the pragmatic grounds of logic and sensibility.The most shakily grounded argument against the adverbial use is one of etiquette or style. Wilson Follett considers this use as "poor workmanship" which is "loose and lawless....rare in writers other than those who take advantage of every latitude." (Follett). H. W. Fowler also reveals a negative bias in his statement that "due to is often used by illiterates" ( Qtd. in Morris). But, as Bergen Evans said, "it is used to qualify a verb millions of times every day. And it is used in this way in very respectable places." So, if we are to devise and enforce laws of grammar based on usage by a particular social class or the preference of some who disapprove of its workmanship-who I might add are a minority-then we should sharpen our pencils, and prepare our oratories, for the battle we've begun hardly ends with this issue and is certain to be long and arduous.A second argument, best stated by Follett, that not every locution is right by virtue of its existence, appears to highlight the noble defense of language from the deterioration caused by uneducated and uncouth use. If this were the case here, I would heartily applaud Follett and Fowler for their defense. But it is not the case. For example, engraved tablets adorning the Philadelphia state house read, " Here sat the Continental Congress...except when...it sat in Baltimore, and in...Lancaster and in...York, due to the temporary occupation of Philadelphia by the British army." (Qtd. In Evans). And in 1957 Queen Elizabeth II opened her addressed of the Canadian parliment with, "Due to inabili...
