some grammatical questions

1. I can't speak Greek well, *whereas* my father can.
2. I can't speak Greek well, *while* my father can.

Both 1 and 2 are correct and have the same meaning right?

3. The murderer was let off *on the grounds that* no evidence had been found.
4. The murderer was let off *due to the fact that* no evidence had been found.
5. The murderer was let off, *for* no evidence had been found.

Are these sentences ok? Do they mean the same ? I guess yes they do. I need confirmation, though.

I believe they are correct.

I'd agree. However, a plain "because" would fit my taste better than 3, 4, or 5. 5 strikes me as massively archaic, thus even somewhat jarring to the ear nowadays. "due to the fact that" is quite verbose and vague. 3 seems definitely the best to me.

Although they might all generally mean the same, there are subtle differences in the connotations.
Could you please explain when 'for' becomes massively archaic - or even jarring.
There are occasions when each of the sentences would be most appropriate. As always, it all depends on who you are talking to and the situation.

Thank you for your replies. :)

As far as I know "for" is just more formal version of "becouse".

I'm not pedantic - but 'because'
so, it's not archaic then, just a formal version.

Dobra, Bernard :-)
Coś ode mnie:


3. The murderer was let off *on the grounds that* no evidence had been found.

on the grounds that - refers to the official reasons for acquitting the man. That was the argument his lawyer used or the argument that the judge quoted.

4. The murderer was let off *due to the fact that* no evidence had been found.

due to the fact - refers to, well, a fact that nobody could deny. I would say that this phrase is superfluous there. A simple 'because' would do as well.

5. The murderer was let off, *for* no evidence had been found.

"ofr' is a poetic/literary variant of because, that's right.

Maybe it's just me, but it sounds as if somebody said in Polish:

"Śledztwo zostło odwołane, ALBOWIEM nie znaleziono dowodów."

Nothing very wrong with that, apart from looking a bit silly.

mg,
...due to the fact - moze wystepuje wiecej w pisemnych wersjach - w mowie to chyba 'because'
'for' - zgadzam sie, ze to jest poetic/literary variant - ale jak to pieknie uslyszec - (no chyba tylko dla ludzi ktorzy uwielbiaja poetry i literary studies).

I second that.

or "nie znaleziono bowiem dowodów"
literary rather than formal.

Ja nie MG, ale

"due to the fact that" jest IMHO strasznie kolubryniastą formułką mającą zastąpić "banalne" "bo" i zrobić odpowiednie wrażenie na (zakompleksionym) odbiorcy,

"for" zaś, podobnie jak "lousy scoundrel" ;) miło jest usłyszeć/zobaczyć w odpowiednim kontekście.

That's what I can add to the topic:
3. The murderer was let off *on the grounds that* no evidence had been found.
...na podstawie tego, iż...
4. The murderer was let off *due to the fact that* no evidence had been found.
...ze względu na fakt, iż...
5. The murderer was let off, *for* no evidence had been found.
...gdyż...

dziekuje, engee30
well said.

You're most welcome, terri. ;-}

Thank you ! You have satisfied my curiosity. Frankly speaking, I have made up these sentences myself and was curious if there is any difference in meaning.

Bonus question : Is "made up" correct pv to be used in the sentence above or I should have used "thought up" or maybe something else ? ;-)

"make up" is absolutely correct. As is "thought up".

*made up* - sorry

thank you, one lives and learns :)

a mnie sie wydaje (moze nie slusznie) ze "for' ma troche inne funkcje gramatyczne niz 'because'zreszta ja sie tylko z "for spodkalem w literaturze,nigdy w jezyku mowionym.Wydaje mi sie ze for jest stosowane jako wprowadzenie do nastepnego,wyjasniajacego faktu a because moze polaczyc przyczyne ze skutkiem