due to of/ because of

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rollercoaster1

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Urdu
Home Country
Pakistan
Current Location
Pakistan
Which context is correct?

I couldn't come to office today due to of being sick since yesterday.
I couldn't come to office today because of being sick since yesterday.
 
Which context is correct?

I couldn't come to the office today due to [STRIKE]of[/STRIKE] being sick[STRIKE] since yesterday[/STRIKE].
I couldn't come to the office today because of being sick[STRIKE] since yesterday[/STRIKE].
I couldn't come to the office today because I was sick. (if you are better)
I couldn't come to the office today because I am sick. (if you are still sick)
These are sentences, not contexts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We normally use "because of" or "due to", we never use "due to of".
Still could anybody differentiate between "due to" and 'because of"? How they are different from each other.
 
Thanks for correcting my mistakes regarding my first post.
I think I should break down the story to make it clear that "since yesterday" was not wrong to use in one of the above sentences.


A guy went to his office yesterday, even he was sick. He spoke to his manager about his condition, and wanted to take short leave.


The manager excused, saying "The boss is not here, when he comes I will ask him and let you go if he agrees".


Their boss came to the office for a short while, and then left the office for a meeting outside. The guy who was sick worked full-time.
The manager was so busy that he couldn't even remember asking the boss.
Before closing the office, the manager remembered it when they were saying "good bye" to each other.


The manager said "I am sorry, boss came for a short while today, and I was so busy that I forgot that you were sick. I couldn't even remember asking him".


So the poor sick guy went home very tired.


(In the above story only the manager knows that the guy is/was sick, but boss doesn't/didn't).




The next morning the guy wakes up late, and feels that he is still sick and can't go to work. He receives his manager's call after half hour of his waking.


The manager says "Are you ok"?


The guy says "Sir, I am still sick. I am sorry I won't be able to come today".


The manager says "It's ok. Take rest. Have you informed the boss? Boss hasn't come yet when he comes I will let him know, but you also have to text or call him about your condition".


The guy says "No, sir, I haven't informed. I woke up half hour ago. I was washing up. I will text the boss now".


The manager says "ok, Take care, bye"!


The guy then texts his boss "I couldn't come to the office today due to being sick since yesterday".


(In my opinion the guy used "since yesterday", just because he wanted to let his boss know that he was sick, even then he was at work yesterday).




I would like to know the difference between context and sentence.
 
It doesn't matter that you were sick yesterday, if you worked the full day.
It only matters that you are sick today.

I'm sick today.
I was sick yesterday and I'm still sick today.
I've been sick for a couple days.
Today is the second day I've been sick, although I worked yesterday.
 
I have no problem with"due to" as a subsitute for "because".
 
Most of us don't, I think.
(I do have a problem with "due to the fact that" or "the reason is because" though.)
 
I have no problem with"due to" as a subsitute for "because".

They cannot be substituted.

  • due to + noun phrase
  • because + clause

MikeNewYork - perhaps you meant because of, as in the OP?

Most of us don't, I think.
(I do have a problem with "due to the fact that" or "the reason is because" though.)


  • due to the fact that + clause (this is a way of making it grammatical to follow with a clause instead of noun phrase)
  • the reason is because doesn't make sense. You can say the reason is or this is because
 
Yes, of course.
 
I would like to know the difference between context and sentence.
Check a few dictionaries first. They aren't even close enough to being the same thing to warrant giving a difference.
 
Check a few dictionaries first. They aren't even close enough to being the same thing to warrant giving a difference.

I think there should be "or" before "_to warrant giving a difference".
 
You're wrong. Raymott's sentence is correct.
 
I think there should be "or" before "_to warrant giving a difference".
They are not close enough to being the same thing, therefore they don't warrant giving a difference.
It's true that they are neither close to being the same thing, nor do they warrant giving a difference. But I'm linking the two to say that they are not close enough to warrant giving a difference.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ask a Teacher

If you have a question about the English language and would like to ask one of our many English teachers and language experts, please click the button below to let us know:

(Requires Registration)
Back
Top