Grammar Moses: Can a good omen be ominous?

I heard someone say "That's a good omen," and I immediately thought two things: I wonder what the ratio of people referring to bad omens is to people who refer to good ones; and "Jeez, J.B., you should stop eavesdropping on conversations, but it's your nature to do so and that's where you get your best column material."

"Omen" is described as something that portends good or evil. It doesn't favor a positive or negative connotation.

For me, though, it tends to carry a negative one. And that has everything to do with the movie of the same name, which scared the bejeebers out of me when I was a teenager.

Come to think of it, "The Omen" wasn't the only movie from 1976 that scared the bejeebers out of me. "Carrie," "Burnt Offerings" and "Alice, Sweet Alice" also were released that year.

So, here is the question: If "omen" is neither good nor bad, why is something that's "ominous" clearly bad?

Instead of describing something foretelling, it describes something foreboding.

The truth is, I can't find a satisfactory answer. Just know that if your mother sets you up on a blind date with someone at work, you shouldn't reply "Ooh, that sounds ominous!" unless you want a lump of coal in your stocking.

But I do have an answer to the first question I asked myself: According to Google's Ngram viewer, in books published between 1820 and 2000 the phrase "good omen" was more common than "bad omen," with the notable exception of 1825-1835. I was shocked by that.

I'm going to guess that 10-year blip had something to do with the emergence of railroads in the U.S., which portended easier transit to the in-laws on holidays.

Due to/because of

Ted Utchen took exception to a sentence in a Business section story that read: "L.L. Bean made the decision to open its latest store in Oak Brook due to the area's proximity to abundant natural resources and opportunities for outdoor activities." Writes Ted: "Doesn't 'due to' mean that something is owing to or should be given to someone else or to some organization, but it should not be used when we are talking about something occurring 'because of' or 'as a result of'?"

Ted, this really is a part of speech issue.

"Because of" is an adverbial phrase, while "due to" is adjectival.

So: He died (verb) because of overeating.

Or: "His death (noun) was due to overeating."

It might not sound weird to say "He died due to overeating," but "His death was because of overeating" does not roll off the tongue.

I bet the vast majority of people either use the two phrases interchangeably or simply use one or the other to suit both purposes.

And for that reason, I'm not going to get too worked up about making the distinction.

Sorry, Ted. Po-tA-to, po-tah-to.

Write carefully!

• Jim Baumann is vice president/managing editor of the Daily Herald. Write him at jbaumann@dailyherald.com. Put Grammar Moses in the subject line. You also can friend or follow Jim at facebook.com/baumannjim.