might have been?

[Unregistered]

is this sentence OK?

Because of his illness, he lost opportunities to find jobs that might have been available to him

thank you

 

[tedtmc]

is this sentence OK?

Because of his illness, he missed the opportunities to find jobs. [STRIKE]that might have been available to him[/STRIKE]

thank you

not a teacher

 

[emsr2d2]

is this sentence OK?

Because of his illness, he lost opportunities to find jobs that might have been available to him

thank you

Due to his illness, he missed out on some job opportunities.

 

[~Mav~]

Is the original sentence ("Because of his illness, he lost opportunities to find jobs that might have been available to him") THAT incorrect? Why is it incorrect at all?
How about this: He lost opportunities to find jobs that (otherwise) might have been available to him owing to his illness. :?:

Due to his illness, he missed out on some job opportunities.

Doesn't "due" function as an adjective? Thus "due to his illness" is an adjectival (prepositional) phrase. That said, it could only be correct in a sentence like this: "his problem in finding job was due to his illness". Or am I wrong? :-?

 

[tedtmc]

Is the original sentence ("Because of his illness, he lost opportunities to find jobs that might have been available to him") THAT incorrect? Why is it incorrect at all?


1. I agree that 'due to' is better than 'because', but the latter is not wrong.
2. You lose something only when you have had it. You miss something which is available but you not take advantage of. So, 'missed' or 'missed out on' are more appropriate.
3. When you talk about job opportunities, your 'might have been available to him' is redundant.

How about this: He lost opportunities to find jobs that (otherwise) might have been available to him owing to his illness. :?:

Doesn't "due" function as an adjective? Thus "due to his illness" is an adjectival (prepositional) phrase. That said, it could only be correct in a sentence like this: "his problem in finding job was due to his illness". Or am I wrong?
This sentence has a different meaning from the first.
:-?

not a teacher

 

[Raymott]

is this sentence OK?

Because of his illness, he lost opportunities to find jobs that might have been available to him

thank you

Yes, it's correct.

 

[Raymott]

How about this: He lost opportunities to find [jobs that (otherwise) might have been available to him owing to his illness.] :?:

Horrible!
You are implying that the jobs were available to him because he was ill. But you don't say why he lost the opportunities to find them.

 

[~Mav~]

*** NOT A TEACHER ***

Is the original sentence ("Because of his illness, he lost opportunities to find jobs that might have been available to him") THAT incorrect? Why is it incorrect at all?

Yes, it's correct.

:up: I'm glad I was right about it. (I.e. I thought it was correct.)

This sentence has a different meaning from the first.

Of course it has. It doesn't mean exactly the same, but it was not what I was after. Have you read why I wrote it? ;-) I wrote this sentence because of the use of "due to":

Doesn't "due" function as an adjective? Thus "due to his illness" is an adjectival (prepositional) phrase. That said, it could only be correct in a sentence like this: "his problem in finding job was due to his illness". Or am I wrong? :-?

:idea: ;-)

Horrible!
You are implying that the jobs were available to him because he was ill. But you don't say why he lost the opportunities to find them.

Yes, it was awkward to put the phrase "owing to" at the end of the sentence. (Plus, without a comma.)
Owing to/because of his illness, he lost opportunities to find jobs that otherwise might have been available to him.