Just because..., (it) doesn’t mean...

I think all your three sentences are correct/in common usage except that the second has an unnecessary comma.

1 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

The "it" nicely summarises the first clause to act as a concise subject of "doesn't mean", otherwise if you leave it out (your second sentence) there is a long (seven word) clause to act as subject. "That" is not as good a choice as "it" in my view. Your first sentence ("it doesn't mean") is the best. To avoid it altogether, as suggested, by rearranging the whole thing, is an artifice, well, to avoid the problem! And "doesn't" is just fine, nothing wrong wrong with it. The whole thing is idiomatic and perfectly sound grammatical English.

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

I would drop the comma entirely and go with this: "Just because I was mean to you doesn’t mean you should be mean to me." This would be a bear of a sentence to diagram, though.

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

All three version of the sentence are fine. The differences between them are mostly a matter of emphasis, but are so minute that you really shouldn't worry about them. And please use the contraction, it sounds very stilted otherwise.

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

The reason all those forms are acceptable is because, based on linguistic theory, that spot after the comma can be filled by a complement or a referent, the complement being "that" and the referent being "it". Both are transitional, but the "it" version is redundant in the information it effectively relates, that being some situation X where person B was mean to person A at some time where t<present (t was before present) where said situation has a direct effect on the future repsonse (repsonse= t>present with the condition of meanness having being asserted)...if that makes any sense :P. Thusly, that is somewhat preferable in simply acting as a segue into the next action while holding onto the information previously stated.

Nevertheless, redundancy occurs throughout language in many facets (i.e. adverbs differing from adjectives only in what they modify and an -ly ending, the meaning of the adjective base is the same, the -ly simply shows acknowledgement that that adjective (modifier) is modifying a verb instead of a noun

1 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

I guess some of the questions we have on this forum are examples of spoken language, which are probably alright anyway if that is how people speak in a particular setting or group and everybody gets the intended meaning.

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

Yes, Max, I agree your sentence sounds even better.

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

Ing—I like your sentence but I think it might be preferable to switch the clauses: "You should not be mean to me just because I was mean to you." Otherwise it seems like "you should not be mean to me" is the direct result of my being mean to you. (In other words, your kindness is a response to my meanness, which doesn't make sense.)

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

How about:
"Just because I was mean to you, you should not be mean to me."

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

Remove the apostrophe from 'doesn't'.

“Just because I was mean to you, it does not mean you should be mean to me.” OR
“Just because I was mean to you, does not mean you should be mean to me.” OR
“Just because I was mean to you, that does not mean you should be mean to me.”

In the first, what subject is "it" referring to? It's like the "they" in "they say you should wait thirty minutes before swimming after a meal." Ambiguous and airy. In the third, "that" is similarly vague.

The second is preferable, and to me, reads better both with "doesn't" and "does not".

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse