# Just because...doesn't mean...



## giovannino

I've often heard native speakers use this structure and I ended up using it myself. An English friend has told me that in his opinion it is both illogical and incorrect. However by googling it I found a long academic essay on this very structure (link). Here's one of the examples in the essay:

_Just because we live in Berkeley doesn't mean we're left-wing radicals_

Is it sloppy English? How would you reword it?


----------



## bibliolept

I wouldn't reword that sentence. I might write "Just because we live in Berkeley doesn't meant that we're left-wing radicals," but the sentence you wrote is correct. understandable, and idiomatic.

It might not be appropriate in a formal context, however.


----------



## tepatria

I would not reword it. Sounds just fine to me. Just because I think it sounds good doesn't mean I have sloppy English! Just because your friend thinks it's sloppy doesn't mean that he is right.


----------



## baldpate

I came across this interesting post, and I thought just to add the following:

In a colloquial context, there is no need to avoid this perfectly acceptable construction, but if you want something equivalent, but in a more formal register, consider replacing "just because" with the "mere fact that".  
_The mere fact that we live in Berkeley doesn't mean we're left-wing radicals_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

baldpate said:


> I came across this interesting post, and I thought just to add the following:
> 
> In a colloquial context, there is no need to avoid this perfectly acceptable construction, but if you want something equivalent, but in a more formal register, consider replacing "just because" with the "mere fact that".
> _The mere fact that we live in Berkeley doesn't mean we're left-wing radicals_


Thank you for this, baldpate.  I prefer this version, but without the mere.

1. The fact that we live in Berkeley doesn't mean we're left-wing radicals.

Shortening a sentence often concentrates one's reaction to its grammar:

2. Just because he's here doesn't mean he's willing to help us.

Because he's here doesn't mean anything of the kind.  It's the fact that he's here that might mean he's willing to help us.

That's why I much prefer the form suggested by baldpate, form 1., to the form in the original post, form 2.


----------



## JamesM

Thomas Tompion said:


> Because he's here doesn't mean anything of the kind. It's the fact that he's here that might mean he's willing to help us.


 
I think this is a faulty analysis, TT. You can't drop the "just" in "just because". It's a key point. It means that the fact alone that he is here is not sufficient to assume that he is here to help us. It's one person pointing out to another person that they are jumping to a conclusion based on a piece of evidence that is, in itself, not sufficient cause.

"Just because you're my brother doesn't mean I'll lend you money anytime you want it." 

This is very different from "Because you're my brother it doesn't mean..."

"Just because" may be an AE construction, but it has a very powerful and distinct meaning, in AE at least. It carries a "hold on there - don't jump to conclusions" message in it.


----------



## JamesM

Another way to say it would be: "Living in Berkeley doesn't (automatically) make us left-wing radicals."  I imagine you can tell from my other post that I have no problem with "Just because... doesn't mean..."  To me it's a set construction in AE.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JamesM said:


> I think this is a faulty analysis, TT. You can't drop the "just" in "just because". It's a key point. It means that the fact alone that he is here is not sufficient to assume that he is here to help us. It's one person pointing out to another person that they are jumping to a conclusion based on a piece of evidence that is, in itself, not sufficient cause.
> 
> "Just because you're my brother doesn't mean I'll lend you money anytime you want it."
> 
> This is very different from "Because you're my brother it doesn't mean..."
> 
> "Just because" may be an AE construction, but it has a very powerful and distinct meaning, in AE at least. It carries a "hold on there - don't jump to conclusions" message in it.


Hello, James, and thank you for your interesting reaction.

I dropped the just not out of any grammatical sleight of hand but because I think simplifying lays bare the structure of a sentence.

If because you're my brother doesn't mean the fact that you're my brother then I can't see how just because you're my brother can mean the fact alone that you're my brother. The word just, meaning only, surely can't perform some sort of grammatical miracle in the sentence.

I fully accept your point about the hold on there-message. I understand the expression without difficulty if it's used in conversation. I suspect it's idiomatic in the sense that it's used so frequently that it doesn't raise an eyebrow with most native speakers. But I still don't like it for the reason I gave.

As a matter of interest, would you accept Because you're my brother doesn't mean I'll lend you money anytime?

I wondered why you added the it in your example of this last construction. It alters the grammar from that in the one we had been considering.


----------



## JamesM

I would accept it but it would not have the same meaning or impact as "Just because."

When it comes to idiomatic phrases I think there _is _a "grammatical miracle" that happens, even from the introduction of one apparently illogical, unimportant word. 

[edit]For a simple example, consider "he beat me last night" and "he beat me up last night." There is nothing vertical about the beating in "beat me up" but it magically transforms it from a loss in a friendly game of cards to a physical beating.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JamesM said:


> I would accept it but it would not have the same meaning or impact as "Just because."
> 
> When it comes to idiomatic phrases I think there _is _a "grammatical miracle" that happens, even from the introduction of one apparently illogical, unimportant word.
> 
> [edit]For a simple example, consider "he beat me last night" and "he beat me up last night." There is nothing vertical about the beating in "beat me up" but it magically transforms it from a loss in a friendly game of cards to a physical beating.


Yes, but I don't think that Just (only) can, in the sentence we are considering, transform an adverbial clause into a noun clause.

The more I think about this the less I like it.

JamesM added an it to his example sentence, to make it into Because you're my brother *it* doesn't mean..." The addition of another subject, albeit an impersonal one, can keep the clause adverbial. It doesn't mean you can do this just because you're my brother - I have no objection to that.

But I don't accept as grammatical the sentence we've been talking about:

_Just because we live in Berkeley doesn't mean we're left-wing radicals_

Here, Just because we live in Berkeley is an adverbial clause which is being asked to do service as a noun clause, to be the subject of the verb, mean. In BE I don't think you can do that, and I'm surprised it's acceptable in AE.

I think I was wrong to say earlier that it was idiomatic.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

On further consideration I've come to the view that

_Just because we live in Berkeley doesn't mean we're left-wing radicals_

is the kind of thing people say, but whose grammatical errors become clear when put on paper.


----------



## Harry Batt

From my experience "Just because " is  idiomatic. If you drop it or keep it, it is acceptable English. I like idiomatic language and would keep it, even in formal writing. I belong to a novelist's association which is loaded with Literature PHDs who wouldn't keep the idiom but they still read my stuff.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Harry Batt said:


> From my experience "Just because " is idiomatic. If you drop it or keep it, it is acceptable English. I like idiomatic language and would keep it, even in formal writing. I belong to a novelist's association which is loaded with Literature PHDs who wouldn't keep the idiom but they still read my stuff.


Interesting, Harry.  How do you counter my objection that an adverbial clause can't do service as a noun clause?


----------



## Einstein

I'm reviving this thread because I recently had a fruitless discussion precisely on this point. If we want to say that we're talking about an idiomatic form and don't care whether it's logical or not, then that's fine.

But if we want to analyze it, I agree with Thomas Tompion: an adverbial clause can't do service as a noun clause.

Let's take up the quoted sentence:
*Just **because* we live in Berkeley doesn't mean we're left-wing radicals


It often happens that a grammatically illogical form is a hybrid of other forms. One possibility is:

You can't say we're left-wing radicals just because we live in Berkeley.
Here just because we live in Berkeley is clearly not a noun clause but an adverbial clause. This remains so if we turn the sentence round:

Just because we live in Berkeley you can't say we're left-wing radicals.
The just because part remains an adverbial clause, followed by a main clause with its own subject (you).

We can substitute you can't say with that doesn't mean. It certainly doesn't grate on my ears to say,
Just because we live in Berkeley, that doesn't mean we're left-wing radicals.

I think that over time there's been a fusion with the following kind of sentence, where the first part is a noun clause and can be the subject of doesn't mean:
The mere fact that we live in Berkeley doesn't mean we're left-wing radicals. OR ...doesn't make us left-wing radicals.

If we are to consider the just because part as a noun clause that can be the subject of a verb (doesn't mean), we should ask ourselves what other verbs can follow it. I can't think of any. That's why I find it reasonable to think that the just because...doesn't mean construction is an idiomatic form, specific for a certain case, not a logical, generally applicable one.

Personally I can live without this construction, but that's just me.

EDIT To be precise, The mere fact that we live in Berkeley is not a noun clause but it has the same overall function and the reasoning is the same.


----------



## panjandrum

Just because it doesn't look like a noun clause when you dissect it and examine its entrails doesn't mean it wasn't one 

It's not that I don't care whether it's logical or not, more that I'm happy to accept it for what it is in the same way that I accept phrasal verbs - and double negatives in the right context.  It's with that background that I suggest it is, despite appearances, a noun clause - because that's its function.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Einstein said:


> [...]
> EDIT To be precise, The mere fact that we live in Berkeley is not a noun clause but it has the same overall function and the reasoning is the same.


It's effectively a noun, isn't it, Einstein?  Are you saying it's not a clause?


----------



## Loob

Einstein said:


> But if we want to analyze it, I agree with Thomas Tompion: an adverbial clause can't do service as a noun clause.
> 
> [...]
> 
> If we are to consider the just because part as a noun clause that can be the subject of a verb (doesn't mean), we should ask ourselves what other verbs can follow it. I can't think of any. That's why I find it reasonable to think that the just because...doesn't mean construction is an idiomatic form, specific for a certain case, not a logical, generally applicable one.


 
I don't, myself, have any difficulty with the idea of an adverb or adverbial clause acting as the subject of a sentence (see this previous thread Can an adverb be a subject of one sentence?).

That said, the authors of giovannino's link in post 1 suggest that there are two possibilities: (1) that *Just because* we live in Berkeley is in fact the subject of doesn't mean, and (2) that *Just because* we live in Berkeley is an adjunct, and doesn't mean has an unexpressed subject.

There's also some discussion in the paper about verbs that can replace "mean" in this construction: see paragraph 4.3.1 onwards.


----------



## Einstein

Thomas Tompion said:


> It's effectively a noun, isn't it, Einstein? Are you saying it's not a clause?


The mere fact is a noun. ...that we live in Berkeley is an adjectival clause (it tells us which fact we're talking about).
The result is the same as if it were a noun clause but I thought I'd point out the imprecision before some other smart Alec did! 

I'll come back on the other points made by others; work calls.
------------------------
I'm back!
To Panjandrum and loob:
1) Anything said and accepted by enough people can be considered right; our job is to understand and describe the language rather than prescribe it.
2) Can an adverb be the subject of a sentence? Well, if someone uses it that way, yes it can.
3) Can an adverbial clause be used as a noun clause? Well, if someone uses it that way, yes it can.

What I've attempted to do is examine this form's consistency or inconsistency with the general principles concerning clause types and their function. I've also tried to examine its origin. Basically it all boils down to using "just because" as a substitute for "the simple fact that". As I said, if enough people want to do that, then no one can protest. However, I don't think this form is 100% established; I personally don't like it and I feel I'm not alone. It has a certain origin, as a hybrid of more logical forms; at least that's my belief.

I still feel at home with the slightly different sentence I quoted above:
Just because we live in Berkeley*, that* doesn't mean we're left-wing radicals.

I feel that this is the origin and that the subject of "doesn't mean" has been dropped through use, creating a new construction which, if you like, requires a different analysis, but I'm not sure how many people who normally omit the comma and "that" would actually find my sentence strange and want to correct it if they came across it. 

I'd really like to know if you agree:
1) about its origin
2) that it's not universal and retaining "that" doesn't sound so strange.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Einstein said:


> The mere fact is a noun. ...that we live in Berkeley is an adjectival clause (it tells us which fact we're talking about).
> The result is the same as if it were a noun clause but I thought I'd point out the imprecision before some other smart Alec did!


Hi Einstein,

I agree that that we live in Berkeley is an adjectival clause. However a standard definition of a clause is

_an expression including a subject and predicate but not constituting a complete sentence_

and 

The mere fact that we live in Berkeley seems to me to meet this definition, and I don't believe that the whole is less of a noun clause because it contains an adjectival clause.

So I'm not sure that we are concerned here with an imprecision, or that the Alec needs to be very smart.

Later on you suggest 

_Just because we live in Berkeley*, that* doesn't mean we're left-wing radicals_

as an improvement on the original, and I've also seen things like

_Just because we live in Berkeley*, it* doesn't mean we're left-wing radicals._

Both seem to me semi-literate - after all, what does the _it_ or _that_ refer to? - evasions of the simple and, to me, obviously correct

The fact that we live in Berkeley*, *doesn't mean we're left-wing. (I don't know any right-wing radicals, so let's jettison the final pleonasm).

I know people say these things, but I wouldn't read much of an author who wrote them.


----------



## JamesM

Thomas Tompion said:


> The fact that we live in Berkeley*, *doesn't mean we're left-wing. (I don't know any right-wing radicals, so let's jettison the final pleonasm).


 
Trust me, there are right-wing radicals. Just because you don't know any right-wing radicals doesn't mean "left-wing radicals" is a pleonasm.


----------



## LV4-26

I agree with TT that only a noun phrase can be the subject of a verb.

I also agree with the objection that only the verb "_mean_" is ever used after "_just because XYZ..._..", which is significant enough, as far as I'm concerned.

Therefore, I would call this construction a "linguistic anomaly".

But that doesn't stop it from being idiomatic. And that doesn't stop me from using it. . I just think it's important to be aware that it is indeed an anomaly.


----------



## Novanas

Just to add my two-cents worth:  I very much agree with those who contend that this "just because" construction is perfectly acceptable.  To reject it is akin to rejecting

"*Hopefully*, we'll get there in plenty of time tonight,"

on the grounds that an adverb must modify a verb, adjective or another adverb and cannot modify an entire clause.

The answer to the claim that an adverb cannot modify an entire clause is, "Yes, it can, if we want it to", and I have the impression that grammarians have now at long last, somewhat ungraciously, conceded the point.

The purpose of language is to communicate, and if a certain construction communicates a point, it's doing its job.  Just because you don't use a certain construction in your neck of the woods doesn't mean that it's bad language.

And just because someone does use this construction doesn't mean they're semi-literate.  It just means that they have different regional uses.  And those of us who do use such constructions recognize that there are different levels of formality and informality, and we might avoid certain constructions depending on circumstances.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Dear Seneca,

I also can't bring myself to say _hopefully_ to mean _I hope that_, so you shouldn't be surprised that people can't bring themselves to say the phrase at issue.  There are moments in your post where you seem to be arguing for linguistic anarchy, and I was left wondering whether and where you draw a line.

Dear James,

I do trust you, and always have, since I joined the forum.  I'll start a thread on whether or not a _right-wing radical_ is an oxymoron.  I thought they were usually described in BE by other terms, usually more opprobrious.  When I was a politics student a _radical_ was inescapably left-wing, but things may have changed since then.


----------



## Novanas

Thomas Tompion said:


> Dear Seneca,
> 
> I also can't bring myself to say _hopefully_ to mean _I hope that_, so you shouldn't be surprised that people can't bring themselves to say the phrase at issue. There are moments in your post where you seem to be arguing for linguistic anarchy, and I was left wondering whether and where you draw a line.


 
Of course I'm not arguing for linguistic anarchy.  If we had that, we couldn't communicate.  We can communicate with each other because we all agree that certain strings of sounds will convey certain meanings.  Language is what a people agree is meaningful.

If we had anarchy--that is, if each person had his own manner of expressing himself--then nobody could understand anybody.

But if a certain number of people agree that a word or expression or construction will mean such and such thing, then there is no point in trying to argue that it doesn't mean that.  They say it does, they use it among themselves and they all understand it, and so it means to them exactly what they say it means.

This is why we have regional differences--because people in one area will agree on something whereas people of another area don't.  And there's no point in telling the people of one area that their vocabulary, constructions, etc., aren't valid, because they are--in that area.  And if it causes some communications problems between various areas, well, that sort of thing happens all the time and those of us who deal with languages deal with that sort of difficulty.

As for where we draw the line, no point in my trying to do it.  People who use a language will do it themselves.

Bear in mind the point about different levels of language.  There are many words and constructions that I use in daily speech that I wouldn't use in formal situations, but that doesn't invalidate informal speech.  It simply means that it's used in different situations.


----------



## LV4-26

baldpate said:


> _The mere fact that we live in Berkeley doesn't mean we're left-wing radicals_


To elaborate a bit further on that...
I need to take TT's version of that one for the purpose of my demonstration and for the same reasons as his.
_The fact that we live in Berkeley doesn't mean we're radicals._

It could even be shortened to
_1. That we live in Berkeley doesn't mean we're radicals_ 
Another possible example ==>
2. _That he found it odd didn't stop him from using it._
The part in blue is a noun clause (i.e. a clause fucntionning as a noun phrase) that can legitimately be the subject of _mean_ and _stop_.
Smilarly, -- ant it's much more frequent --we can use the same type of noun clause as an object.
_3. He said that he found it odd._

If _(just) because XYZ _could function in the same way, then it could be used as an object as well and we could have things like...
4. _*He said (just) because you were living in Berkeley._
....as  complete sentences.

That confirms that, idiomatic though it is, the construction at issue is indeed a...."singularity" (as they say in mathematics or astrophysics). Or that it's "syntactically aberrant". That's all I'm saying, mind you: I'm not prescribing anything.


----------



## JulianStuart

From the WR dictionary, as a nice succinct definition:_ 

Idiom: an expression whose meaning cannot be inferred from the meanings of  the words that make it up.

_In the usual sense, I think this is interpreted to mean that some _words_ don't mean what they usually mean. Perhaps it should be extended to include phrases or expressions where some "rules" are not obeyed? In either case, something that doesn't "make sense" is considered to be acceptable. No anarchy or prescriptions required


----------



## giovannino

(It's probably not relevant but it's interesting that the same identical structure is used in Italian.)

I get the impression that it's more widely accepted in AE than in BE, at least in usage guides. The _Columbia Guide to Standard American English _finds it perfectly acceptable:



> _Because_ introducing a clause that is the subject of a sentence has also been proscribed, but in fact such constructions are Standard, though limited to Conversational and Informal use: _Just because I've missed a few classes doesn't mean I'm not interested in the course_.


 
On the other hand, in the revised edition of _Fowler's _(1996) Robert Burchfield writes (in a section on "questionable _because-_clauses"):



> _Because_ (or _just because_) at the head of a dependent clause governing a main clause: _Just because I'm here now doesn't mean I didn't go, does it?_ -1913 [...] _Just because someone does not agree with or is offended by Knechtle's beliefs is no reason to keep him off campus_ - 1988
> Such_ because_-clauses demand too long an attention span before the onset of the main clause


 
From the _Oxford Guide to English Usage:_


> Careful writers avoid the use of _because_ in contexts such as _Because he's_ _old (it) doesn't mean he's stupid_ [...] The idea of 'explanation' should not be expressed twice in the same sentence.


 
As a non-native I can hardly comment on the acceptability of this construction. As I said, it probably sounds fine to me because it is very common in spoken Italian. However, some of the authentic examples (especially the ones using verbs other than "mean") quoted in my link strike me as odd, so I'd like to ask the native speakers who find the most common version (_just because...doesn't mean_) acceptable what they think of the following:

_Just because someone has a black belt means nothing_

_...just because there is an investigation by no means should be taken to infer __that any wrongdoing has occurred_

_“Just because he’s adopting a Republican agenda in a timely fashion doesn’t __reflect growing in the job,” said Gary Koops, deputy campaign director for Bob Dole._​ 
_Just because the driver was a different race does not qualify it as a hate __crime_


----------



## kalamazoo

Wow,what a confusing discussion.  I wonder if there is some AmE/BrE difference here. To me the subject of the original sentence is "Just because we live in Berkeley" and inserting a 'that' or an 'it' would change the sentence structure.  I also interpret it as meaining that the mere fact that someone lives in Berkeley is not sufficient to indicate that the person is a left-wing radical. Similarly,"just because you're my brother doesn't mean that I am going to lend you money" is equivalent to saying the fact that you are my brother is not by itself enough to give me a reason to lend you money (although there could be some other reason).


----------



## Loob

giovannino said:


> I'd like to ask the native speakers who find the most common version (just because...doesn't mean) acceptable what they think of the following:


I find the _just because...doesn't mean structure_ acceptable, and I'm pretty sure I use it. (Incidentally, I find the Burchfield argument against it decidedly odd - unless he was criticising only long 'because-clauses'....)

My general reaction to the sample sentences is that they all sound like spoken language, complete with the usual sorts of infelicities. Taking them in turn:

- I don't think I'd say the first one (_Just because someone has a black belt means nothing)_

- With a bit of tweaking, I might say the second one_: just because there is an investigation *should* by no means *should* be taken to *infer imply* that any wrongdoing has occurred_

- I'd tweak the third one too:_ “Just because he’s adopting a Republican agenda in a timely fashion doesn’t reflect growing *competence* in the job,”_

- The fourth one I might say without tweaking:_ Just because the driver was a different race does not qualify it as a hate crime_


-


----------



## giovannino

Thanks, Loob I must admit that I, too, found Burchfield's argument rather odd.


----------



## kalamazoo

I don't like any of these sentences

_Just because someone has a black belt means nothing_

_...just because there is an investigation by no means should be taken to infer that any wrongdoing has occurred_


_“Just because he’s adopting a Republican agenda in a timely fashion doesn’t __reflect growing in the job,” said Gary Koops, deputy campaign director for Bob Dole._​ 
_Just because the driver was a different race does not qualify it as a hate __crime_
__ 
_I_ think I would confine myself to the "just because ... doesn't mean" or "doesn't imply" or "doesn't signify" type of construction.


----------



## Forero

I think these _because_ clauses are noun clauses:

_The reason for the accident is _(_just_)_ because __the driver was drunk.
__The reason they thought we were left-wing radicals was _(_just_)_ because we live in Berkeley.
__ It was _(_just_)_ because the driver was drunk that the accident occurred.
__It was _(_just_)_ because we live in Berkeley that they thought we were left-wing radicals.
__Just because we live in Berkeley doesn't mean we're left-wing radicals._
_Because we live in Berkeley doesn't by itself mean that we're left-wing radicals.
__Because someone has a black belt, by itself, means nothing.
__Just because someone has a black belt means nothing.
_
 I prefer _that_ to _because_ in most of these sentences, but informally they all make sense and do not seem ambiguous, though the first one makes me "double-take". (Does the reason exist only because the driver was drunk?)

Some alternative structures:

_It is not true just because we live in Berkeley that we're left-wing radicals.
It does not necessarily follow just because __we live in Berkeley__ that __we're _(or _that we might be_) _left-wing radicals__.
__The mere fact that __we _(_may_)_ live in Berkeley__ does not mean/imply __we're left-wing radicals__.__
Our living in Berkeley__ does not by itself mean __we're left-wing radicals__._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Forero said:


> I think these _because_ clauses are noun clauses:
> 
> _The reason for the accident is _(_just_)_ because __the driver was drunk._
> [...]I prefer _that_ to _because_ in most of these sentences, but informally they all make sense and do not seem ambiguous, though the first one makes me "double-take". (Does the reason exist only because the driver was drunk?)
> [...]


I'm not surprised at that double-take, Forero. I'm not at all happy with that form.

It suggests that one should say

_Why is the reason?_

rather than

_What is the reason?_


----------



## Einstein

a) I don't like flying because I'm afraid of heights.
b) I don't like flying for the reason *that* I'm afraid of heights.
c) The reason why I don't like flying is *that* I'm afraid of heights.

I think in (b) no one would say "for the reason because". In (c), though, "reason" and "because" are sufficiently separated for the clash to be less evident. The words "reason" and "because" are closely associated concepts in our minds and so there is a natural tendency to say "the reason... is because". However, I don't believe this really changes the nature of the "because" clause so that it needs a different analysis. Rather than say it's a noun clause I'd say it's still an adverbial clause, but used in a less-than-logical manner. If it then suits a lot of people to use it in that manner, who can object?

A similar logic applies to our main discussion. I think that a hybrid form is used for brevity or because of an association of ideas. Having eliminated "it" or "that", we have a main clause without a subject. Through use we then think of the facts expressed in the "because" clause as the subject and then it's a small step to consider that the clause itself is the subject. But I'm not sure that we really need to.

In all discussions about "illogical forms" we shouldn't throw up our hands in horror at new uses but neither should everyone be expected to change. Where there are differences, discussions are inevitable.

By the way, I don't know who said that an adverb can't modify a whole sentence (#22)!  But that's another discussion.


----------



## LV4-26

Einstein said:


> [...] I think that a hybrid form is used for brevity or because of an association of ideas. [...]


I agree with that.

In my opinion, it all started from
_That we live in Berkeley doesn't mean we're radicals.
_
But then,  there rose the need for a short way to say
_The mere fact that we live in Berkely doesn't mean....
_

_Just that we live in Berkeley.._
wouldn't work.

Hence the _just because...._

Only a theory, though. I'm submitting it for what it's worth.


----------



## Einstein

LV4-26, I'm sure you're right.
To tell the truth, reading this thread I've found that this _just because...doesn't mean_ construction is far more deeply-rooted than I thought, to the point that some people wouldn't dream of expressing themselves differently. However, that "some" is important. There are evidently quite a few native English-speakers who don't feel at home with this form. That makes discussions of this kind inevitable!

As an aside, I remember a children's exclamation, _Just because....! _For example:
- I don't like these pictures.
- Just because you can't even draw!

- I don't like lying on the beach.
- Just because you're too fat!

There are better examples.


----------



## EdisonBhola

I think (and have been taught) that the correct version should be:
_Just because we live in Berkeley, *that* doesn't mean we're left-wing radicals._

The word “that” and the comma are required.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

EdisonBhola said:


> I think (and have been taught) that the correct version should be:
> _Just because we live in Berkeley, *that* doesn't mean we're left-wing radicals._
> 
> The word “that” and the comma are required.


I'm afraid that you've been misled, Edison, for many of the reasons given earlier in the thread.


----------



## Loob

EdisonBhola said:


> I think (and have been taught) that the correct version should be:
> _Just because we live in Berkeley, *that* doesn't mean we're left-wing radicals._
> 
> The word “that” and the comma are required.


I'd be happy with both versions, Edison - the version with a comma and "that", and the version with neither.
I think, looking at previous posts in the thread, that TT is saying he doesn't like either of them.


----------



## Einstein

Here's one to think about:
*Just because we live in Berkeley, you can't deduce that we're left-wing radicals.*

Here we have what is clearly an adverbial clause, followed by a main clause with its own subject. If "can't deduce" can have a pronoun as a subject, I don't see why "doesn't mean" can't equally have a subject like "it" or "that".

PS Also "it doesn't follow..."


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Loob said:


> [...]
> I think, looking at previous posts in the thread, that TT is saying he doesn't like either of them.


Hi Loob,

It's true that I don't like either, just as I don't like _*The reason why...etc.*_

I was also taking issue with the suggestion that the comma and the _*that *_are 'required', as though they make the form somehow respectable.

I had a look at the Corpuses and constructions like '_Just because we live in Berkeley doesn't mean we're left-wing radicals' _are very common.  The version with the comma and_* that*_ or_* it*_ less so, I'm pleased to say.    I'd still correct them all in my students, if I still had any, just as I'd correct _*The reason why...  *_For logical rather than rhythmic or euphuistic considerations.

Call me old fashioned.  You'd not be the first.


----------



## velisarius

I've no quarrel with "the reason why", any more than I have a bone to pick with "the idea that".

I don't think there's anything wrong with _Just because...it doesn't mean, _and it's probably what I'm most used to hearing. But, like Mr Tompion, I would drop the unnecessary _it_ or _that. 

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me._


----------



## Forero

I stand with those who find this construction troubling. (Of course I am also troubled by "the reason why", "the reason is because", and "due to this reason".)

To me, "Just because we live in Berkley" sounds adverbial, so it does not make a satisfying subject for "doesn't mean".

How would one deny such a thing? "Just because you live in Berkley does mean you're left-wing liberals"?

I suggest that the real intended subject is something like "The mere fact (that) we live in Berkley" or "Our living in Berkley".

Why not just say "We may live in Berkley, but that (alone) doesn't make us left-wing radicals."?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

velisarius said:


> [...]
> any more than I have a bone to pick with "the idea that".


Do people have a bone to pick with "the idea that", Velisarius?

There must be a Latin expression for an attempt to refute an argument by citing an inoffensive parallel as also under attack.


----------



## zaffy

Does this coversation work? We have a couple on the phone.

A: Mark, you never call me, do you even miss me? 
B: Honey, of course I do. Just because I don't call you doesn't mean I don't miss you. I'm just snowed under with work.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

zaffy said:


> Does this coversation work? We have a couple on the phone.
> 
> A: Mark, you never call me, do you even miss me?
> B: Honey, of course I do. Just because I don't call you doesn't mean I don't miss you. I'm just snowed under with work.


B uses the form I've told you I object to.  I wouldn't use it, Zaffy, and when I say that I mean that I'd advise you not to as well.


----------



## giovannino

zaffy said:


> Does this coversation work? We have a couple on the phone.
> 
> A: Mark, you never call me, do you even miss me?
> B: Honey, of course I do. Just because I don't call you doesn't mean I don't miss you. I'm just snowed under with work.


I suggest you read the whole thread, Zaffy.
By the way, is the conversation you quoted taken from a textbook?


----------



## zaffy

giovannino said:


> By the way, is the conversation you quoted taken from a textbook?


No, I made it up and can't see what's wrong with it.


----------



## Enquiring Mind

For most people, there's nothing wrong with it given the style and context you describe.


----------



## giovannino

zaffy said:


> No, I made it up and can't see what's wrong with it.


In post #27 you can read what some major usage guides have to say about the _Just because..doesn’t mean… _structure.


----------



## elroy

zaffy said:


> Just because I don't call you doesn't mean I don't miss you.


This is perfectly idiomatic and common in US English.


----------



## giovannino

elroy said:


> This is perfectly idiomatic and common in US English.


Several speakers of BrE who posted in this thread found the structure idiomatic.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

giovannino said:


> Several speakers of BrE who posted in this thread found the structure idiomatic.


And several deplored it.


----------



## giovannino

Thomas Tompion said:


> And several deplored it.


And the two British usage guides I quoted in #27 didn’t find it acceptable. I just wanted Zaffy to have the full picture.


----------



## giovannino

Since I started this thread years ago I’ve watched out for this structure in TV programmes, movies, books, newspapers and magazines. I have found it to be very common. The latest example, from a newsletter for expats in Italy:

“Just because things don’t work out perfectly, doesn’t mean they won’t work out”


----------



## Thomas Tompion

giovannino said:


> Since I started this thread years ago I’ve watched out for this structure in TV programmes, movies, books, newspapers and magazines. I have found it to be very common. The latest example, from a newsletter for expats in Italy:
> 
> “Just because things don’t work out perfectly, doesn’t mean they won’t work out”


Yes, of course.  Just because people don't know how to speak properly doesn't mean we should tell them not to open their mouths.


----------



## Loob

TT, I think I know how to speak properly. And yet (a) I agree with giovannino (b) I happily use the construction discussed in this thread.
You and I are going to have to agree to differ on this issue, as on quite a few others.


----------



## Myridon

giovannino said:


> acceptable


That's not a word used in those quotes. Fowler's complains that "because" clauses are too long to use as subjects, then Oxford gives an example using a very short clause. Oxford's "condemnation" is "careful writers avoid it" and it expresses "explanation" twice.  
Are long subject clauses never acceptable (even when they are quite short)?
Do we always have to be careful?
Should we cease and desist all redundancy?


----------



## giovannino

I’ve just found out that the construction is included in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English without any usage labels. The Longman version has “it” before “doesn’t mean”.
The online Cambridge Dictionary omits “it”:
“Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get me”.


----------



## Loob

Myridon said:


> Should we cease and desist all redundancy?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I can see that if you use a form enough you can become desensitised to its weaknesses.  I'm familiar with the grammatical inconsistency in my continued objection to _hopefully_ to mean_ I am hopeful that_, while I accept _thankfully_ to mean _I am thankful that_.  I'm not appealing to any higher sense of grammar here.

My objection, which is vigorous and sustained, is based, I suspect, mostly on the grounds put forward by the Oxford Guide to English Usage, already quoted.  I dislike the logical redundancy:

From the _Oxford Guide to English Usage:_



> Careful writers avoid the use of _because_ in contexts such as _Because he's_ _old (it) doesn't mean he's stupid_ [...] The idea of 'explanation' should not be expressed twice in the same sentence.


I wonder if those of you who can say _Just because...doesn't mean that..._ without a blush of shame are also happy to say things like _The reason Phoebe is lonely is because she's so aggressive_.  I find that just as bad, and, again, we have the 'explanation' coming twice in the sentence.  As an editor I'd correct that to _Phoebe is lonely because she's so aggressive_, or even, less readily, to _The reason Phoebe is lonely lies in her aggression_.


----------



## giovannino

I'm reviving this thread in order to hear more opinions about the acceptability of this structure. It seems to be more acceptable in AE than in BE. The Columbia guide to AE usage finds it standard, whereas two British guides to usage (the Oxford one and Fowler's - See post #27) condemn it.
The latest example of the many I've heard, from a Michael Bublė song: "Just because I never took your picture off my phone  doesn't mean that you're still on my mind".


----------



## velisarius

Acceptability for what purpose? In informal conversation it's hardly likely to mark you out as "uneducated". I wouldn't hestitate to use the construction, but it would irk me if someone else tried to use it but didn't get it quite right.


----------



## giovannino

Thanks, Velisarius. What about the discrepancy between the AE usage guide and the two BE ones?


----------



## kalamazoo

I think the construction is perfectly okay and not substandard at all (I am an AE speaker). I would equate it to something like "my being in Berkeley doesn't necessarily mean I am a left-wing radical."


----------



## Uncle Jack

giovannino said:


> I'm reviving this thread in order to hear more opinions about the acceptability of this structure. It seems to be more acceptable in AE than in BE. The Columbia guide to AE usage finds it standard, whereas two British guides to usage (the Oxford one and Fowler's - See post #27) condemn it.
> The latest example of the many I've heard, from a Michael Bublė song: "Just because I never took your picture off my phone  doesn't mean that you're still on my mind".


Your quote from Fowler didn't seem to object to "just because" + dependent clause being the subject of the main clause, but to the length of the dependent clause in the second quoted sentence. However, you have omitted the middle part of the quote, so we cannot see what was said about the first sentence: _Just because I'm here now doesn't mean I didn't go, does it?_

The Oxford quote, with "it" in brackets and not using "just", does not appear to be discussing this particular structure.

Both the observation from Fowler:


> _Just because someone does not agree with or is offended by Knechtle's beliefs is no reason to keep him off campus_ - 1988
> Such_ because_-clauses demand too long an attention span before the onset of the main clause


and Oxford


> Careful writers avoid the use of _because_ in contexts such as _Because he's_ _old (it) doesn't mean he's stupid_ [...] The idea of 'explanation' should not be expressed twice in the same sentence.


seem to me to be valid. But "just because" is not an explanation.



velisarius said:


> it would irk me if someone else tried to use it but didn't get it quite right.


 Using an idiom and getting it wrong is considerably worse than not using idioms at all.


----------



## dojibear

giovannino said:


> What about the discrepancy between the AE usage guide and the two BE ones?


AE and BE are different in many ways, especially slang, informal or "idiomatic" terms.

When someone asks about what is idiomatic, I always limit my comments to AE. 

I have watched many British TV shows, and read many British books, and don't have difficulty understanding.
But I do not consider myself a speaker of BE.


----------



## giovannino

Many thanks to you all for sharing your views.


----------

