"It is important to note that just because the main clause comprises the modal verb 'would,' it doesn't mean the if clause is hypothetical and requires the subjunctive mood."
I don't think this sentence should include 'it.'
I think the clause "just because the main clause comprises the modal verb 'would'" is in fact a noun clause as the subject of the verb 'doesn't mean' and thus 'it' is not meant to be there.
Is this right or wrong?
Thanks
Top answer
It works either way. I think most people would say (or write) it . CJ
— CalifJim
It works either way.
I think most people would say (or write) it .
CJ
Free · every Monday
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
Is it an expletive/dummy it then? That is, it refers to nothing. Could you please explain this in terms of its constituents, as I'm having a hard time understand why either case works.
It's a 'dummy' (or 'expletive') it, in which case there is no referent. Alternately, the reference of it is to the preceding idea in general, i.e., in this case, the inclusion of would in the main clause.
Just because [X is true], [the truth of X] doesn't mean that ....
that just because the main clause comprises the modal verb 'would,' it doesn't mean the if clause is hypothetical and requires the subjunctive mood."= object of infinitive/noun clause
that just because the main clause comprises the modal verb 'would,' it doesn't mean the if clause is hypothetical and requires the subjunctive mood."= object of infinitive/noun clause