“In and of Itself”
To many people, the phrase “in and of itself” sounds clunky and old fashioned. However, when used sparingly–and correctly–it serves a purpose.
Example: The weather was not, in and of itself, the cause of the traffic delays.
vs.
Example: The weather was not the cause of the traffic delays.
In both sentences, we understand not to blame the weather for the traffic delays, but in the first sentence, the weather’s involvement is acknowledged. In the second sentence, we have no indication that the weather had anything to do with the traffic delays.
Posted on Friday, January 19th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
46 Responses to ““In and of Itself””
Leave a Reply
Search the Blog
Blog Categories
- Abbreviations
- Adjectives and Adverbs
- Apostrophes
- Brackets
- Capitalization
- Colons
- Commas
- Dashes
- Dates and Times
- Definitions
- Effective Writing
- Ellipses
- Good vs. Well
- Humor
- Hyphens
- Lie vs. Lay
- Numbers
- Parentheses
- Possessives
- Postal Regulations
- Prepositions
- Pronouns
- Quotation Marks
- Semicolons
- Singular vs. Plural
- Spacing
- Spelling
- Symbols
- Titles
- Uncategorized
- Verbs
- Who / Whom / Whoever / Whomever
Monthly Blog Archives
I suggest not using this goofy phrase in any sentence. Please tell me what “in and of itself” communicates.
For example:
The weather was not, in and of itself, the cause of the traffic delays.
The weather was not the cause of the traffic delays.
Apparently the first sentence has more information than the second — but I do not see the difference between the two.
It’s a bad example. A better example would be;
“This explains my point in and of itself”
as opposed to
“This explains my point entirely by itself”
As I understand it…
‘In and of itself’ communicates the information that the subject, acting alone, could not have produced the observed result.
(It sounds like an old-fashioned way of saying ‘By itself’.)
Both sentences tell you not to blame the weather for the delays, but the first sentence acknowledges the weather’s involvement while the second merely denies causality.
I agree with Briana.
I agree with Sam. Using the phrase”in and of itself” is just filler and adds nothing meaningful or significant to the sentence. In fact, this phrase makes the whole sentence redundant, wordy, and trite. I say jettison “in and of itself” to a black hole far, far away and don’t look back.
PS: I think that you could whittle down the phrase to just one word– “itself”– and write the following:
The weather itself was not the cause of traffic delays.
This would probably satisfy Briana.
I, however, like it short and sweet. Anyway, that’s my two cents’ worth in all of this.
Sam and Ben, I can see that “in and of itself” is filler. Ben, I like your idea of “The weather itself was not the cause of traffic delays.”
Yay! It’s great that I was able to win Jane over. She’s hot.
Hmmm. . . I maybe I should have written the following instead:
Yay! It’s great that I’m able to win Jane over. She’s hot.
Now, every the whole sentence is in the present tense.
Ugh. Typos. I need to get rid of the extra “I” and “every” from the above. It’s been a long day. :-/
I like Ben’s idea too.
Is this ok:
If John was more enterprising, he would have got of at the previous station itself.
If John were more enterprising, he would have disembarked at the previous station.
Samuel: “The weather was not, in and of itself, the cause of the traffic delays. The weather was not the cause of the traffic delays. Apparently the first sentence has more information than the second – but I do not see the difference between the two.”
In the second sentence, it’s ambiguous whether the weather was partly responsible (though not the ultimate cause) or entirely unrelated.
A site about grammar and punctuation, and yet the very first sentence is wrong?
“To many people,” should be “Too many people,”
Wow.
You are misreading my statement.
Wow. Reading comprehension was not my strong suit. Sorry.
No worries, Tim.
I agree with Ben that simpler is better, but what puzzles me about this little phrase is the utter redundancy of “and of”.
If one wants to add a little emphasis, why not, The weather was not, in itself, the cause of the traffic delays?
I agree with you, Gavin.
I’ve always disliked the phrase ‘in and of itself’. I see it too often in communications both printed (magazine articles) and web sites, blogs etc these days. It was great to to see the discussion here work out a good alternative to this obscure term. I like the form ‘itself’ or maybe ‘in itself’ best.
Another point to join the discussion:
Jane: “If John were more enterprising, he would have disembarked at the previous station” has a change in tense and, to me, should read “If John HAD been more enterprising, he would have disembarked at the previous station”…. or “If John were more enterprising, he would disembark at the previous station”. Depends which tense you’re using.
Any thoughts?
I prefer “If John were more enterprising, he would have disembarked at the previous station” over “If John had been more enterprising…” because this quality in John is current, not in the past. Disembarking at the previous station is simply being used as an example of John’s ongoing lack of enterprise.
Samuel Spriggs,
The first sentence implies that the weather conditions contributed to traffic delays, but was not the sole cause for them. The second sentence simply states that the weather was not a factor in the delays, at all.
Wouldn’t “alone” also serve the same function? For example, “The weather alone was not the cause of the traffic delays”.
I still like using the occasional “in and of itself”, especially in speech. Like it or not, cliched phrases are easier to parse, and phrases in general seem easier to insert into a sentence as you’re synthesizing it.
Yes, you’re right that “alone” would also serve the same function as “in and of itself.”
I find the phrase “in and of itself” to be pretentious, and it makes me cringe when I here it, like fingernails on a chalk board. It is redundant because you can say “in itself” (heard quite often) or “of itself” (heard much less often). Is far as I can tell, the two mean the same thing, so saying them together is unecessary blather.
I can understand your thought on this.
For me, it sounds strange to say otherwise. :/
Try discussing Immanuel Kant or any other deontologist without it. As nomenclature it’s useful but I agree it should usually be avoided.
In the example, the use of ‘in and of itself’ exempts the weather as the direct cause of traffic congestion. Rather, it infers that human reaction to the affects of the weather led to problem traffic empirically; traffic – cars – drivers. This is a good example of how reading comprehension is absolutely essential to precise analysis and understanding of the material under consideration. Pure data is beneficial, but color, felicity, emotional content are the true medium of human information exchange.
I am considering beginning a statement “Nothing is important in and of itself…”, so far it seems to read better than “alone” or “in itself” or “of itself”. To me this “redundancy” is a way of being thorough, and I like to be thorough when I make declarations. Opinions?
I agree that it sounds more complete than using “alone,” “in itself,” or “of itself.”
Being a public school teacher for 19 or so years (that can mean ANYTHING people, that is not a badge of honor- I do not post this to profess an expertise off the English language, hell, I used to say I had eaten the taco quickly! Boy, I paid hell for that and have never forgotten it. I was just writing a letter to a friend of infinite years (creative license), but he’s my best friend, and I just wrote “which worries me in and of itself” for something that is not important to the reader of this post… and I thought, “why did I just automatically write that phrase? I never use it… but it was perfect for this letter I was writing, and I’m not sure why.” So, I looked it up, found this forum, and decided it was the perfect thing to say.
Hmmm, so I think.
We should all write the way we want to write. Every sunset is different. Every sentence/paragraph/story is different. They are all beautiful in their own way. That’s all. (am I supposed to write “the end”?)
If the author of a book, letter, communication uses “me in and of itself”, then God bless them! (whoops, I’m agnostic). It is what it is. This is part of the English language. You can argue all you want about how streamlined it is… but that really doesn’t matter. The English language is beautiful… and to tell people they cannot use this expression is like, maybe, sorta like telling people they need to paint those paintings “by the number”. (I don’t know if it’s just me, but those “painting by numbers” are kinda… umm, ugly?)
Let the author, the artist, paint by words how they want to paint. The beauty of the written language is… if you don’t agree with me… I don’t care! I will write exactly how I want to write. And you know? No one has read my private works, and they will never, but I love to write. Don’t tell me to write by numbers… the English language is too beautiful for that. OK… I’m stepping off my soapbox
To write effectively you need to identify the purpose for writing and who makes up your audience. As long as you know what is good grammar and punctuation and what is not, your formal writing may look quite different from your informal writing.
All the talk of streamlining the language gives me a cringe with thoughts of newspeak dancing in my head.
The flourishes are what makes writing great, quick and to the point is for technical manuals.
“Quick and to the point” also now applies to text messages!
The words “in” and “of” have real, actual meaning in English and must be used accordingly if they are to be used correctly. “In” is a preposition which is used to indicate inclusion within limits (of space, place, time, or perhaps some abstract thing as in “in the news” or “in trade”). “Of” is a preposition which is used to indicate distance or separation (“It’s a quarter OF three” to indicate 2:45, or “We’re within 3 steps OF the cliff”), derivation or source (“part OF a whole” or “friend OF mine”), or cause or reason (to faint OF exhaustion).
Therefore, if you really mean to say that “The weather was not, within the limits of itself (or within the limits of what it is by nature) the cause of the traffic delays,” then use “in itself.” If you mean to say that “The weather was not, due to its own causes (or due to those causes of which the weather would inherently be the source), the cause of the traffic delays,” then use “of itself.” If you really, truly want to express both meanings, then it is technically correct to use “in and of itself,” but be aware that this is an overused phrase (that is, cliche’), so even though it may be correct, it will still almost always be poor style. Normally, a writer or speaker really means only one or the other (either “in” or “of”), and not both.
These are subtle distinctions, but if you understand the actual meanings of each preposition, you can make an intelligent choice in your phrasing without using tired, annoying expressions. Also, because of the subtlety in the meanings, in some cases the use of either “in” or “of” would work equally well. In those cases, using both prepositions would be redundant, so just choose the one that seems to express your true meaning most clearly.
You make some interesting points; thank you for your comments. However, I am not sure that I would write, “The weather of itself was not the cause of traffic delays.” It sounds awkward.
I’m currently writing a quick blurb about a few things that agitate me about NC-17 films. (Not intending to be crude or anything.) I just listed a few things that should be changed. One of the things I listed was something that, in and of itself, can be completely off putting. I think “by itself” shouldn’t be used in this case because the thing being described isn’t a noun but a verb.
Example:
There are many things that can be done to keep the heart healthy.
(1) Running, in and of itself, can cause a lowered heart rate.
(2) Running, by itself, can cause a lowered heart rate.
“Running alone” shouldn’t be used in this sentence due to multiple meanings of the word “alone.”
Actually, the word “running” in the case of your examples is a noun, not a verb. I do, however, agree that using “running alone” could be confusing for the reader. I think that your first example sounds best.
Thanks for the discussion. Hats off to you, Barry. I came to this site because I am writing a formal paper and want to know what is “correct.” I agree with Jane, that in the privacy of my own little world I can speak as colloquially as I please. For example, I spent almost a decade in the Midwest, and I still find the phrase, y’all, to be very useful. I just don’t use it in my professional life.
it is not a filler phrase. it insinuates that as a stand alone whatever given thing would not be a factor but in context it is. such as – “the birds in and of themselves are lovely, but the noise at dusk is terrible.” Not.Filler.
It is synonymous with the word ‘exclusively’.
I hate the phrase, “in and of itself.” It’s banal and pretentious.
Personally, I think saying, “banal and pretentious” is itself banal and pretentious.
The first sentence could be reworded: “The weather was not solely responsible for the traffic” or “The weather was contributing to the traffic”.
The latter sentence gives the impression that the weather had absolutely nothing to do with the traffic. I interpret this as the way ‘in and of itself’ should be used.