I don't know, i'm not very good at this kind of thing but i'm loving the replies 

Ha Ha no, it was the first thing that came into my head when I read the opening post!

squiggles reply about using a fancy phrase reminds me of something I say when I edit our user manuals and such:

 

"He's using a five dollar* word when he's only got 50 cents in his pocket."

 

*pronounced "dollah" for full effect.

 

Now that's already been decided, I like "as a result of" the best. And I can't even remember who said it.

'Twas meeeee Lori!  

 

I wanted to include a use of 'nature' that Rawky-poo wanted to encourage in his student so I suggested 'as a natural result of...'.  

 

* takes The Lori special statuette award after short, self-effacing acceptance speech that leaves the audience quietly impressed by my dignity *  

Yes, but that's actually using a DERIVATIVE of Nature. And changing how he was trying to use it. I don't think it was particularly the word 'NATURE' that he was desperately trying to use, but that construction. Thus why Blizzie's 'by virtue of' gets the 'Rawky Gold Tie' award!

Try explaining 'by virtue of' to someone trying to learn English, Fluffs! Especially if it's Blizz recommending it.  

 

Rawky was impressed by his student using the word 'nature', right? By incorporating it, albeit being a derivative, into his feedback to what the student had written, it would enable him to elaborate and encourage. That's the point of teaching, no? 

He knows a lot of things about different topics and I think it is by nature of watching TV

 

It's not bad and perfectly acceptable IMO.  However, 'a lot of things' is superfluous.

 

 

It's not what I'd have wrote. 

 

He knows a lot about different topics.  I think it is due to watching TV.

 

As some have said, by nature of watching TV does imply that absorption of knowledge is a given consequence of TV viewing. A highly debatable statement requiring qualification.  I suppose it's cultural and reading between the lines. 

 

My two sentences also require reading between the lines and assuming that watching TV involve absorption of knowledge. 

 

In so far as watching TV, it ideally should be qualified by what is watched.  For example, it's open to debate that watching ITV2 and e4 all the time could expand knowledge much beyond the nuances of reality TV, American sitcoms and the X Factor.

 

However, if what the author of the statement regards as 'a lot about different topics' many others would regard as a narrow range of topics, the statement is still grammatically correct to the person making it, even if they are misguided in making it.

Stimulated by this thread today's bike ride conversation concerned english language. We both went to grammar schools and my memory was of twatty English teachers trying to ram the Ronald Ridout books down our throats. Any creativeness was stamped out unless an absolute knowledge of verbs, adverbs, tenses and stuff was shown. Of course Mrs Jer believes in all that shit, she wouldn't write otherwise. It wasn't until my thirties and forties that I was confident enough to write and I must confess she puts it all into English. Alas! Some of us don't understand language, but with a bit more encouragement and assistance............ (obviously she didn't correct this)

'Zacterly Carport!  

 

That is what I thought the OP was trying to express! The poor bloody student was experimenting with language. The last thing s/he needed was a battering about bad sentence construction or vocabulary. Like you and Mrs Jer, I was a grammar girl (and I suspect, of a similar generation). I, however, had a great English teacher who didn't give a flying about anything other than expressing our ideas. Consequently, I got my best A-level in English and went on to get a degree in English. Any smattering of grammar I picked up along the way was by virtue of  studying Latin to A-level too. Which I almost flunked. Hated it.

 

I think I may have to fall out with Mrs Jer now. 

 Bloody cheek!  

 

When I first read it, it seemed to me that the pupil had meant to use 'by virtue of' and mistakenly used 'nature'. It sounded like he'd heard the phrase before.

 

If Rawky wants to encourage the correct use of 'nature', maybe it could be, "He knows a lot about different topics, which I think it is by virtue of watching TV, due to the nature of the TV programmes he watches".

Very impressive!