“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.
February 17, 2007 at 12:52 pm
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.
February 22, 2007 at 7:41 am
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.
February 26, 2007 at 4:02 pm
I agree with Briana.
February 28, 2007 at 11:51 am
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.
February 28, 2007 at 12:17 pm
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.
February 28, 2007 at 3:14 pm
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.”
February 28, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Yay! It’s great that I was able to win Jane over. She’s hot.
February 28, 2007 at 11:09 pm
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.
February 28, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Ugh. Typos. I need to get rid of the extra “I” and “every” from the above. It’s been a long day. :-/
March 2, 2007 at 3:30 am
I like Ben’s idea too.
April 15, 2007 at 3:07 am
Is this ok:
If John was more enterprising, he would have got of at the previous station itself.
April 16, 2007 at 2:18 am
If John were more enterprising, he would have disembarked at the previous station.
April 7, 2008 at 5:06 pm
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.
June 25, 2010 at 7:55 am
A site about grammar and punctuation, and yet the very first sentence is wrong?
“To many people,” should be “Too many people,”
Wow.
June 25, 2010 at 8:28 pm
You are misreading my statement.
June 26, 2010 at 8:37 am
Wow. Reading comprehension was not my strong suit. Sorry.
June 27, 2010 at 11:31 am
No worries, Tim.
June 28, 2010 at 4:44 pm
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?
June 28, 2010 at 4:47 pm
I agree with you, Gavin.
July 4, 2010 at 2:07 am
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?
July 4, 2010 at 11:13 am
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.
July 12, 2010 at 4:53 pm
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.
July 24, 2010 at 7:57 pm
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.
July 25, 2010 at 10:39 am
Yes, you’re right that “alone” would also serve the same function as “in and of itself.”
September 1, 2010 at 6:38 pm
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.
September 1, 2010 at 7:53 pm
I can understand your thought on this.