2

Trying to understand the logic of the below sentence to make the same kind of sentences. It's pretty hard for me because I mostly use "for" something like "for me" etc.

  • This city is famous for its delicious food.

So in the sentence, it looks like "for" is giving a reason for the result.

But "due to" also gives a reason and modifies a noun (or pronoun). So, it seems the below sentence correct to me.

  • The city is famous due to its delicious food.

If so, can I use for interchangeably?

ziLk
  • 121
  • Technically, your version is grammatically correct. But it does sound awkward.

    And, no, "for" and "due to" are two different things.

     – Ricky Feb 05 '21 at 08:06
  • Yes, it doesn't sound correct to me either. But "due to" is used for giving a reason. What it's the missing part? – ziLk Feb 05 '21 at 08:13
  • @KannE actually with the same logic, "thanks for your quick response." (it's also giving a reason for the action.) I agree with you the first sentence sounds better but do you know why? – ziLk Feb 05 '21 at 08:54
  • Due to or because of would make perfect sense in this context - they are just 'not the way we say it'. – Kate Bunting Feb 05 '21 at 09:31
  • 2
    Being "famous for something" seems slightly different to being "famous due to something". You can be famous due to an event or circumstance or an advertising campaign, but are typically famous for an essential feature or characteristic that is considered good ("famous for its beauty", "famous for its beaches", "famous for its food"). You can be famous due to a bad thing that happens but are famous for something good. – Stuart F Feb 05 '21 at 10:57
  • @Stuart F Agreed. 'Famous for' is far more coherent than famous, due to ...'. 'A is famous for X' synonymous with 'A's X is legendary.' – Edwin Ashworth Feb 05 '21 at 15:50

0 Answers0