0

I remember reading in an English style guide (The Scott Foresman Handbook for Writers) that the words whilst and due to were quite redundant and not to be used. The author did not seem to like them as whilst was just another word for while and due to was a rough form of saying because.

However, I've found myself using the due to quite often. For instance, I'm writing a long sentence that can have two becauses. In that case I end up using due to in place of the second because. For example:

For a sincere and talented writer, all barriers to entry are finally removed because of the e-publishing phenomena, and that was only possible due to the Internet revolution pioneered by Tim Berners Lee in the early nineties.

What can I use in place of second because if I don't want to use due to?

Also, I personally find it more elegant to say "Whilst" instead of "While". But is that the perception of most modern readers or not?

  • 5
    Whilst I have come across denigration of its use, I employ 'whilst' all of the time, and to the meagre extent to which I pay attention to it, others do too. I've never encountered disapproval of the phrase 'due to', and find the idea that it's redundant, as it clearly conveys causation. A word isn't redundant just because it has a synonym; it's redundant when its meaning is already conveyed through other words in the sentence. – 568ml Mar 5 '15 at 11:47
  • 3
    'Whilst' is an archaic and outdated form of 'while'. That it is somehow more formal or more elegant is a common misconception. Common enough, perhaps, that certain demographics of reader would prefer the former. The same is true of 'amongst' and 'among'. – mike32 Mar 5 '15 at 11:48
  • 3
    @mike32 What committee determines when such things are archaic? And where can I obtain a memorandum of their utterances over the last several years? Of whom are they composed, and how do they arrive at their decisions? – WS2 Mar 5 '15 at 12:45
  • 4
    @Mitch Well I speak one of the 'other varieties', perhaps one of the more obscure ones, namely the English of England. – WS2 Mar 5 '15 at 13:01
  • 3
    There's nothing wrong with "due to", if it's not overused. Especially in situations where you want to avoid over-becausing, it may be a good choice. (But in your e-publishing sentence above, I'd actually prefer to see "due to" and "because of" swapped.) "Whilst" is archaic, but may be appropriate in "poetic" contexts. – Hot Licks Mar 5 '15 at 13:35
3

"For a sincere and talented writer, all barriers to entry are finally removed because of the e-publishing phenomena, and that was only possible due to the Internet revolution pioneered by Tim Berners Lee in the early nineties" sounds OK to me (bear in mind that I am not a native speaker though).

Moreover, if, as you asked, wanted to know what can you use in place of second because if you don't want to use due to, I would suggest thanks to ;

" For a sincere and talented writer, all barriers to entry are finally removed because of the e-publishing phenomena thanks to Internet revolution pioneered by Tim Berners Lee in the early nineties"

3

There are plenty of good reasons not to use "whilst":

  1. It is identical to "while" in meaning, but because it's a rarer word, it distracts your reader.
  2. It has never been the norm. Dickens never uses it, and even Shakespeare uses it sparingly.
  3. Many style guides, including the BBC, the Guardian, the Economist, and the Canadian Hansard, advise simply to replace it with "while".
  4. It sounds pompous and affected.

"Due to" is fine the way you use it: it might be a bit of a writer's disease to avoid duplicating formulations, but if you can do it without jumping through hoops, it does make your prose sound more elegant, and "due to" is clear and understandable.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.