Check this sentence, please.

Check this sentence, please.
 

Is this sentence well written? Take into account that the term "imposed barriers" refers both to the ones "self-imposed" and to those which are "externally imposed". I wouldn't like the sentence could be ambiguous. :thinking:

Languages can also be maintained due to self-imposed (for example, ideological or religious constraints) or externally (for example, geographical isolation) imposed barriers.

Thanks. :)

It is rather condensed, and could perhaps read better thus:

Languages can also be maintained by self-imposed barriers (for example, ideological or religious constraints) or externally imposed barriers (for example, geographical isolation). :)

Edit: or -

Languages can also be maintained by barriers: either self-imposed ones (for example, ideological or religious constraints), or external ones (for example, geographical isolation).

What about:

Languages can be maintained due to the existence of some kind of barriers: either...

;)

It depends on the exact mechanism, and I don't know what you are trying to say.

The level of water in the reservoir was maintained at a safe level by releasing water into the valley. (deliberate direct cause and effect)

The level of water in the reservoir rose to dangerous levels due to heavy rain on the mountains. (unintentional effect of a cause)

Now if you use can (Languages can be maintained ), it implies a direct and deliberate cause, an agent, needing by, not due to.

If your life depended on using due to, then you could say

It is possible that a language is maintained due to ...

In this case, the fact that a language is maintained is not a deliberate cause of setting up barriers.

There must be an easier explanation, or others might well disagree. :thinking:


:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

Long explanation; stop for a rest, please. :coffeebreak: :rose:

What I wanted to say is that the existence of these barriers may be one of the causes of the maintenance of these languages. And this is a possibility, it may occur or not. :thinking:

And of course, my life doesn't depend on using "due to". :D :kiss:

I'm not sure if that "by" expresses clearly what I want to say. :o

I think I have a problem with your use of can, because this expects a by.-

You can crack a nut by hitting it with a hammer
You can spoil a joke by telling it at the wrong time...

How about:-

Languages are often maintained, due (amongst other things) to ...

Languages are often maintained, partly due to ...

:)

I'll leave that "by" (me has convencido :D ). Thanks a lot. :) :rose:

Perikles, what do you think about this sentence?

Style can be associated with the study of literary writing due to/by the long literary tradition. Nevertheless style is linked to all lingusitic behaviour, both written or spoken.

May I use "may" instead? :thinking:

Thanks. :)

Edit: I could say "because of the long literary tradition", too.

My first reaction is that it is two sentences. :p

I don't like either of them. See below

'may' suggests a much greater element of uncertainty, which you probably don't want.

I think this is best

The more I ponder these things, the less I am certain. It may be just my prejudice (or pride :rolleyes:). We need more opinions.

I wrote the second sentence to give more context, I was interested in the first (although I don't know why I wrote "or" :thinking: :D )

OK, I'll wait. Thank you. :)