Just because...

[E.G. Gammon]

Starting a sentence with "Just because" almost always means there will be a comma in the middle of it, and something else after it. Now, it's how the phrase after the comma begins, that's my question. You hear something like this often:

Just because he did it once, doesn't mean he won't do it again.

But, does that sound wrong to any of you? Shouldn't it be:

Just because he did it once, THAT doesn't mean he won't do it again.

I'm just confused. You hear it the first way all the time, but it has never sounded right to me. I just hope someone can clear it up for me. Thanks.

[CindyBidar]

I'd say the first way is correct, but I would remove the comma. No idea the rules or whatnot, it just sounds better to me that way. I'm sure someone with more knowledge than I will chime in with a rational answer, though.

[Jamesaritchie]

Starting a sentence with "Just because" almost always means there will be a comma in the middle of it, and something else after it. Now, it's how the phrase after the comma begins, that's my question. You hear something like this often:

Just because he did it once, doesn't mean he won't do it again.

But, does that sound wrong to any of you? Shouldn't it be:

Just because he did it once, THAT doesn't mean he won't do it again.

I'm just confused. You hear it the first way all the time, but it has never sounded right to me. I just hope someone can clear it up for me. Thanks.

There are rules, and then there are Rules. But in the above, I use no comma in the first sentence. Using "that" does requires a comma. And "that" is one of the most overused words in writing. It can be eliminated the majority of the time, and should be whenever possible.

I'll also say I didn't think you were going where you were with the sentence. What I expected was "Just because he did it once doesn't mean he will do it again."

[reph]

"Just because he did it once doesn't mean he'll do it again" is ungrammatical, because the sentence has no proper subject, but it's idiomatic. It shouldn't have a comma. Adding ", that" in the middle doesn't make the sentence correct. If you add the "that," though, you need the comma.

For a grammatical sentence, you could say "The fact that he did it once doesn't mean..." or "His having done it once doesn't mean..."

Not all sentences in fiction have to be grammatical.

[Birol]

Not all sentences in fiction have to be grammatical.

:Hail: :Hail: :Hail:

Reph, thank you, thank you, thank you. You just made my day. :D

[Sandinista]

Just because he did it once, doesn't mean he won't do it again.
Does that sound wrong to any of you?

It reads weird to me b/c of all the negatives.
...does NOT mean he will NOT do it again. Seems there should be a much simpler, clearer way to say this. Although I can't think of it right now either.

[reph]

Sandinista, you're right about the negatives. Logically, it should be "Just because he did it once doesn't mean he'll do it again."

[Mistook]

I get really weirded out by words like "just" and "still"

[Jamesaritchie]

"Just because he did it once doesn't mean he'll do it again" is ungrammatical, because the sentence has no proper subject, but it's idiomatic. It shouldn't have a comma. Adding ", that" in the middle doesn't make the sentence correct. If you add the "that," though, you need the comma.

For a grammatical sentence, you could say "The fact that he did it once doesn't mean..." or "His having done it once doesn't mean..."

Not all sentences in fiction have to be grammatical.

Well, yes and no. It's only ungrammatical as a standalone sentence. The previous sentence decides whether or not it's grammatical. A sentence is allowed to take a proper subject from the preceding sentence. If this is done, the "it" in the sentence becomes a proper subject.

So if the conversation begins with something like:

"You're really going to hire McMuffin? Don't you know he robbed his last employer blind?"

"Just because he did it once doesn't mean he'll do it again" then becomes a grammartical sentence.

Grammar demands a proper subject, but "it" is a perfectly good subject, if the previous sentence clarifies what "it" means.

[reph]

Well, yes and no. It's only ungrammatical as a standalone sentence. The previous sentence decides whether or not it's grammatical. A sentence is allowed to take a proper subject from the preceding sentence. If this is done, the "it" in the sentence becomes a proper subject.

I wasn't talking about whether "it" qualifies as a subject. I meant that the "Just because..." phrase isn't a proper (grammatical) subject. That phrase isn't a substantive.

[Jamesaritchie]

I wasn't talking about whether "it" qualifies as a subject. I meant that the "Just because..." phrase isn't a proper (grammatical) subject. That phrase isn't a substantive.

It's still grammatical. "Just because" doesn't have to be a proper subject in and of itself, and in this case, shouldn't be. This was always the most arbitray rule in English, and one that, in fact, never was followed, except by high school teachers.

Beginning a sentence with "Just because" is perfectly fine grammar.

You can really screw up some good writing by trying to follow that rule.

[NicoleJLeBoeuf]

For a grammatical sentence, you could say "The fact that he did it once doesn't mean..." or "His having done it once doesn't mean..."...which must be why I have such trouble with this construction.

I've completely internalized the Strunk & White sanction against the phrase, "The fact that." (http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk5.html#13) The book says it's never necessary, and as such shouldn't be used ("omit needless words") - and I'm not one to live by a book, but since the issue's been brought to my attention, I've never seen a "the fact that" that I couldn't live without. If it takes "the fact that" to make something grammatical, I'll stick with writing ungrammatical sentences.

Perhaps one might say, "His having done so once did not preclude the possibility of his doing so again," depending on how formal a tone one wishes to take. ;)

[Mistook]

Am I correct to assume in this context that "just" is a synonym for "simply"?


"Simply because..."

[reph]

Right, Mistook, "just" means "simply" here.

Jamesaritchie, suppose we leave out "just." Then the sentence reads "Because he did it once doesn't mean he'll do it again. Are you saying that's grammatical too?

I can see beginning a sentence with "Just because" or "Because" if it goes like this: "Just because Pedro felt like it, he decided to paint his house green." I have a big problem with using a "because..." phrase as the subject of a sentence in writing unless the tone is deliberately casual. "Because you hate your mother-in-law is no reason to poison her": no, not in regular writing.

[Writing Again]

The first question of course is "Does it make sense?" and the answer to that lies in what went before.

The next question of course is does the sentence suit your style? I imagine reph will write a gramatically perfect book except for the dialog, other people will write narrative that will sound like fragmented dialog.

Taken alone the sentence sounds odd because the norm is, "Just because he did it once doesn't mean he'll do it again," which is almost a cliche.

"He broke his leg jumping over box cars the last time."

"Just because he did it once doesn't mean he won't do it again."

I don't think I'd ever use that sentence in narrative.

[BradyH1861]

This reminds me of a country song that starts out

"Just because I asked my friend about her"

Anyway, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the thread other than the word choice at the beginning. What can I say, I'm a George Jones fan.

Brady H.