[字辨] due to 和 because of

看板Eng-Class作者 (水戶黃妞的貓)時間7年前 (2016/10/03 11:21), 編輯推噓6(6推 0噓 65→)
留言71則, 6人參與, 最新討論串1/1
Due to 和 Because of 都是常用的字詞"因為...什麼緣故", 也很常讓我搞混. 查了資料這兩個詞的詞性 Due to 是 prep 但本質是形容詞, 用來修飾狀態; Because of 也是 prep 但本質是副詞 用來修飾動詞. e.g. His success was due to family's support (O) His success was becasue of family's support (X) He succeeded due to family's support (X) He succeeded becasue of family's support (O) 這樣感覺還是不太好分辨. 另外, 分辨的方法還有用 due to = caused by 方式來取代, 若看起來順的話, 就可以用 due to e.g. His success was caused by family's support (O) He succeeded caused by family's support (X) 以上分享. -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 61.221.86.75 ※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Eng-Class/M.1475464898.A.ED9.html
→
10/03 11:36, , 1F
不會不好分. 或者記之以連綴動詞用due to 非連綴用becau-
10/03 11:36, 1F
→
10/03 11:37, , 2F
se 如果有例外再上來分享
10/03 11:37, 2F
→
10/03 11:39, , 3F
限縮一下範圍好了 be動詞用due to
10/03 11:39, 3F
→
10/03 20:55, , 4F
http://tinyurl.com/hybvo25 7 ... His poverty was
10/03 20:55, 4F
→
10/03 20:56, , 5F
because of the circumstances ...
10/03 20:56, 5F
→
10/03 20:56, , 6F
be動詞之後也能接副詞 / 副詞也能修飾be動詞
10/03 20:56, 6F
→
10/03 20:56, , 7F
10/03 20:56, 7F
→
10/03 20:56, , 8F
-> 方框 Register ...
10/03 20:56, 8F
推
10/03 22:26, , 9F
10/03 22:26, 9F
→
10/03 23:12, , 10F
d大的版本才合理 硬區分due to和because of反而
10/03 23:12, 10F
→
10/03 23:13, , 11F
呈現出"文法學家"的迂腐 同樣源自形容詞的owing to
10/03 23:13, 11F
→
10/03 23:13, , 12F
怎麼反而等同於because of 而非due to呢?
10/03 23:13, 12F
推
10/04 01:40, , 13F
何妨不把be due to 當片語? 它的用法類似於result from
10/04 01:40, 13F
→
10/04 01:41, , 14F
我不會說be because of是錯的,但它鐵定可以被代換成be du
10/04 01:41, 14F
→
10/04 01:42, , 15F
-e to, 而且有些人反對be because of 這種用法;相對地,
10/04 01:42, 15F
→
10/04 01:43, , 16F
用be due to較沒有爭議,出現頻率也更高.
10/04 01:43, 16F
→
10/04 01:45, , 17F
儘管"不常見不代表錯誤",我認為英文學習者宜學習相對常
10/04 01:45, 17F
→
10/04 01:45, , 18F
見的高頻用法.
10/04 01:45, 18F
→
10/04 01:46, , 19F
(dunchee大, 您認為His success was becasue of family's
10/04 01:46, 19F
→
10/04 01:46, , 20F
support正確嗎 ?)
10/04 01:46, 20F
→
10/04 01:48, , 21F
我的觀點是because常見於口語的是[字本身和其用法],
10/04 01:48, 21F
→
10/04 01:49, , 22F
而非[be because of]這種用法,因為[be due to]比較適用.
10/04 01:49, 22F
→
10/04 01:50, , 23F
due to 也不是僅有[be due to]這種用法, due to有時置於
10/04 01:50, 23F
→
10/04 01:51, , 24F
句首或句尾,且常是以表示負面情況的理由,但有些人也反對
10/04 01:51, 24F
→
10/04 01:51, , 25F
這種用法,取而代之認為此處宜以[owing to/ because of],
10/04 01:51, 25F
→
10/04 01:52, , 26F
[thanks to]則用於表示正面情況的前因 ;因此我認為＂In e
10/04 01:52, 26F
→
10/04 01:54, , 27F
-veryday English, people usually use because of＂..指
10/04 01:54, 27F
→
10/04 01:55, , 28F
的是這個部位,不是[be due to]這個部位.這是我認為兩者
10/04 01:55, 28F
→
10/04 01:56, , 29F
不難區分的理由:[due to]和[because of],出現的位置(斷句
10/04 01:56, 29F
→
10/04 01:56, , 30F
點)經常很不一樣.
10/04 01:56, 30F
→
10/04 02:07, , 31F
我google了it's because of 我覺得這樣用是沒問題的
10/04 02:07, 31F
→
10/04 02:08, , 32F
甚至有的時候反而是due to不太合適(*it's because
10/04 02:08, 32F
→
10/04 02:09, , 33F
of you) 我現在只肯定because of比較口語 due to比
10/04 02:09, 33F
→
10/04 02:10, , 34F
較書面正式
10/04 02:10, 34F
推
10/04 03:00, , 35F
it's because of 的[is]是跟著it 它不是[be because of]
10/04 03:00, 35F
→
10/04 03:01, , 36F
的結構 因為簡單講 it's 這只是強調句 for強調而已...
10/04 03:01, 36F
→
10/04 03:05, , 37F
本質上就是置於句首的Because of用法 學院派就是反對Due
10/04 03:05, 37F
→
10/04 03:06, , 38F
to you 這樣用 這個case在上面有包含進去了
10/04 03:06, 38F
→
10/04 03:15, , 39F
如果it's不是強調用法 那麼He's because of 這種句子也該
10/04 03:15, 39F
→
10/04 03:16, , 40F
同樣平行存在,但我暫時想不到相關例句
10/04 03:16, 40F
→
10/04 03:24, , 41F
那你也搜尋看看沒縮寫的形式...是強調功能 所以?
10/04 03:24, 41F
→
10/04 03:25, , 42F
所以還是個使用恰當的例子沒錯嘛? 本質上(功能嗎?)
10/04 03:25, 42F
→
10/04 03:27, , 43F
跟句首Because of一樣又Due to句首被反對 這又有什
10/04 03:27, 43F
→
10/04 03:33, , 44F
麼關聯? Because of能這樣用不是因為Due to不能那樣
10/04 03:33, 44F
→
10/04 03:35, , 45F
用 [be because of]能用也不是因為Because of能用
10/04 03:35, 45F
→
10/04 03:37, , 46F
還是聚焦在實際的字面吧 不然就變成編故事 假想各種
10/04 03:37, 46F
→
10/04 03:38, , 47F
usage有理由在支持或串連
10/04 03:38, 47F
→
10/04 03:40, , 48F
這沒什麼好混淆的其實. 句中用[be due to]較佳,用[be be-
10/04 03:40, 48F
→
10/04 03:40, , 49F
ecause of N]較拙劣;至於你提的[It's because of you.]
10/04 03:40, 49F
→
10/04 03:41, , 50F
be because of的主詞得是個事件或狀態(或是指涉它們
10/04 03:41, 50F
→
10/04 03:41, , 51F
其實很特例.它僅僅就是[Because of you.]而已
10/04 03:41, 51F
→
10/04 03:41, , 52F
的代名詞) He指人 當然不可能接be because of
10/04 03:41, 52F
推
10/04 03:47, , 53F
因此你意思是只會有It's because of 會存在 其他代名詞則
10/04 03:47, 53F
→
10/04 03:47, , 54F
否對吧
10/04 03:47, 54F
→
10/04 03:50, , 55F
是啊
10/04 03:50, 55F
→
10/04 03:50, , 56F
那麼在沒有context的情況下,就是It's ....that的結構
10/04 03:50, 56F
→
10/04 03:51, , 57F
這樣有回答到你嗎~
10/04 03:51, 57F
→
10/04 04:10, , 58F
我又沒有發問 而且有的時候後面界是沒接that子句 你
10/04 04:10, 58F
→
10/04 04:11, , 59F
要假設一個補上去嗎? 為什麼就不能直接承認 [be
10/04 04:11, 59F
→
10/04 04:14, , 60F
because of]本身使用的合理性 而老是想要把它化約到
10/04 04:14, 60F
→
10/04 04:14, , 61F
我只是把廣義的情況一次列出來啦XD 在你有上下文 可以不
10/04 04:14, 61F
→
10/04 04:15, , 62F
用把真主詞或強調結構列完 再不能理解的話我也沒有辦法
10/04 04:15, 62F
→
10/04 04:16, , 63F
其他用法?
10/04 04:16, 63F
推
10/04 04:17, , 64F
應該是有人看得懂我在說什麼啦 我只是提供一個便捷的看法
10/04 04:17, 64F
→
10/04 04:18, , 65F
把句中(非句首/句尾)的[be due to]看成片語 即可
10/04 04:18, 65F
→
10/04 04:56, , 66F
原PO"Because of 也是 prep 但本質是副詞" 這聽起來
10/04 04:56, 66F
→
10/04 05:01, , 67F
真的是很弔詭
10/04 05:01, 67F
推
10/04 08:39, , 68F
原P:because of是prep，because of family's support
10/04 08:39, 68F
→
10/04 08:40, , 69F
當形容詞用，做主詞補語修飾主詞，不是修飾be動詞。be
10/04 08:40, 69F
→
10/04 08:40, , 70F
動詞這種連綴動詞或助動詞不會被其他詞修飾。副詞修飾
10/04 08:40, 70F
→
10/04 08:41, , 71F
的動詞是一般動詞。
10/04 08:41, 71F
‣ 更多 vincee 的文章
文章代碼(AID): #1NySx2xP (Eng-Class)