i och för sig

11:01 Jun 18, 2013 

Send her my best ... as a 'fallen angel' myself, I tend to be hard on the profession. I was once given a complicated contract written in Eng by a Maltese laywer. My Swe client, who is good in Eng, said 'please make this understandable for me!' no translation, just editing. There are lawyers who write well and ...

10:47 Jun 18, 2013 

Tread very carefully Deane :-)
My other half is a lawyer, and Italian at that. Lawyer jokes tend to result in severed horse heads and the like... ;-)

10:43 Jun 18, 2013 

Yeah, this time your term really seems out of place. More lawyer jokes?

10:39 Jun 18, 2013 

Strictly speaking your term has a specific legal usage in Swe which does translate to 'per se' as most common law lawyers would use it. I am struck by this Swe usage since the term is also so colloquial in most contexts, but we are discussing lawyers and their use (or misuse) of language. Here, in the first clause of your sentence the usage seems entirely correct to me. In the second clause, the Swe seems excessive, but still, per se would fit. So I mostly agree with Norskpro, but think Charlesp has a good suggestion for the second usage -- where I think you can confidently state it is not needed.

10:38 Jun 18, 2013 

Here's some more context for you. This would actually support Charles' suggestion of disregarding the phrase, I feel:

"För det fall det i målet blir utrett att motparten har skadebegränsat i erforderlig omfattning och inte har kunnat åstadkomma högre produktion i Norge under stilleståndet, vitsordar företaget – för det fall motparten styrker att beslut om att införa ett femte skift fattades redan innan branden - i och för sig ett belopp om 1 655 788 kr (bortfall om 10 119 ton material x bruttomarginal om 0,21 kr/kg material)."

As you can see, this is a miserable text. Would I also be justified in saying that it is poorly written, or am I just saying that because I detest legal translation? If I don't reply, it's because I'm hanging from a noose somewhere.

10:25 Jun 18, 2013 

Yes, disregarding it is an option, but I will hold up my hands and say that I didn't know how to translate it in the first place.
It is so easy to fall into the trap of not translating something because you don't know how, and not translating something because you can confidently state that it is not needed.
Currently I think I could be classed more as the former than the latter.

09:38 Jun 18, 2013 

Well, "per se" seems to work in the example, but so does "as such".

09:21 Jun 18, 2013 

I don't think anyone in the legal profession would get away with writing something that feels quite as chatty and vernacular as "i och för sig" in English.

Norskpro may be on to something with "per se" - nothing like a bit of Latin to make it appear that you're well qualified.