ty to market their grain, prairie farmers have been faced for some time with a shortage of sums..." (qtd. In Morris). The wide spread, public and formal use of due to for adverbial elements hardly qualifies it as uneducated or uncouth and actually contradicts the definition of locution. In fact, if precise usage is the issue, I think it would be more accurate to call the grammarians substitution of other phrases in adverbial uses a locution.A third, and probably the closest to being valid, argument against the adverbial prepositional use of due to was stated by Theodore Bernstein when he wrote, "Strict grammarians object to the usage on the grounds that the adjectival character of due is...disregarded". This statement -if left unanswered-would appear to be on grammatically solid footing. Unfortunately for strict grammarians, who William Morris calls "purists", this position has not only been answered, but the footing under it has been so disturbed that if the ground were literal it would be unsafe to build upon. Firstly, George Curme wrote in 1928 "the preposition due to is not more incorrect than the preposition owing to..." ( Qtd. in Bernstien). This position is supported by Evans who adds that there is no theoretical basis for the distinction between the two as they are grammatically alike, and even Follett accepts owing to for introducing adverbial elements. Secondly, Webster's dictionary as early as 1934 listed due to as "meaning because of and introducing an adverbial modifier" (Follett). Thirdly, by 1940 linguists were voting by "considerable majority" (Morris) to approve the usage despite a group of "minority" "critics" as Morris and Evans respectively call them. Finaly, as best stated by Heywood Hale Brown, " Rules of grammar which don't contribute to clarity can be thrown out with the classroom chalk stubs." (Morris p.593).Although I agree that due to is overworked and lacks a graceful tone, neither social standing nor style ...
