Article possible here?

Question

Hi, Is the definite English article "the" possible here? I think it is but can't explain the reason to myself or to others.

The many/a lot of/few people we had for the seminar were due to the excellent/bad publicity we had for the occasion.

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

.
The article is required, but your sentence has other problems:

The many/few people we had for the seminar was because of the excellent/bad publicity we had had for the occasion.
.

Avangi · Answer

The article is fine; the rest of the underlined portion is not, IMO.

I'd say, "The number - - - - - is due etc." BTW, congratulations on you correct usage of "due to." I hardly ever see it.

You could say, "The few/many people we had all got sick - all got bored and left.

You're trying to use "people" as the subject of the verb were, but that's not what you mean.

You can't say, "The fat people who came were due to the fabulous menu." The subject of "were/was due to" must be a noun. Edit. This is a bad example***

You can say, "The fatness of the people who came was due to the fabulous menu."

You can say, "The fewness (if that's a word) of people who came was due to etc."

You can say, "The large/small number of people who came was due to the great/poor advertising."

- A.

Edit. Woops! Looks like I screwed up my contratulations. MrM says It's the other way! Drat!

Edit. Edit. Woops again! As you were! He's allowing "people" as the subject. That's a different approach. (Only a few people came, because of bad advertising. "because of" is used with the verb, "came.")

***(see above) "People" is of course a noun, as in the OP. But "people" are not exactly what we wish to attribute the turnout to.

Mister Micawber · Answer

.
There's more than one way to skin a cat.
.

Avangi · Answer

My cat and I thank you for your lenience.

Abil · Answer

Can I interrupt here? I am little bit confused. What is the difference between "due to" and "because of"? Could you please explain it with example sentences? Thanks.

Avangi · Answer

Hi, Sure!

It's a common error trap that many native speakers get sucked into. I'd even say more than half the people don't know about it. I learned about it from my orchestration professor.

If you don't mind, I'll take the easy way out and give you a web reference.

http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/agcomm/ontarget/0609/Grammar_trap.htm

Best wishes, - A.

Mister Micawber · Answer

.
There is no difference in meaning, Abil. It's a bone of greater contention than it need be, but I have perversely decided to take the prescriptive road on this one, just to irritate the descriptivists.

From the Am Heritage Dict:

"Due to has been widely used for many years as a compound preposition like owing to, but some critics have insisted that due should be used only as an adjective. According to this view, it is incorrect to say The concert was canceled due to the rain, but acceptable to say The cancellation of the concert was due to the rain, where due continues to function as an adjective modifying cancellation. This seems a fine point, however, and since due to is widely used and understood, there seems little reason to avoid using it as a preposition."

In Anon's sentence, it may be used 'correctly'-- as Avangi noted, it is not so clear-- but I am looking at the 'due to' as an adverbial, so I changed it to 'because of' (which also means 'owing to', but I don't like the ring of that either. A personal thing, I suppose, like my aversion to catsup).
.
.

Mister Micawber · Answer

.
Ah. Overkill.
.

Abil · Answer

Thanks Avangi and MM for your explanations and the link.

Avangi · Answer

Mister Micawber Ah. Overkill.

I see your point, MrM, but sometimes the incremental approach gets a little tedious too. Sometimes it seems like "shock and awe" is more economical, but I guess most of the time it's just disgusting. - A.

Article possible here?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions