were in substance

USAGE SUMMARY

"were in substance" is correct and usable in written English.
This phrase is used to indicate that two things are essentially the same. For example: The two documents, though slightly different in structure, were in substance the same.

✓ Grammatically correct

Academia

News & Media

Science

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

11 human-written examples

Its terms and the services rendered were, in substance, identical with those set forth in Calhoun v. Massie.

Cornell University

"All three compounded the vice of what they did by conspiring to extort what were in substance bribes from Liliya Shobukhova by acts of blackmail.

The Guardian - Sport

For it showed unmistakably that the projected improvements were in substance an enlargement of a drainage ditch for the construction of which the lands within the district, including appellants', had already been assessed.

Cornell University

Underlying all the contentions made in the cause is the fundamental question whether the suits were, in substance, suits against the state, and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the circuit court, because of the express prohibition of the 11th Amendment.

Cornell University

The facts shown upon the trial were in substance as follows: The predecessor of the plaintiff was a German corporation engaged in the manufacture of chemical products, among them the drug in question, which was its own invention.

Harvard University

In a statement, the IAAF said it was angered the officials sanctioned by the ethics panel "conspired to extort what were in substance bribes from the athlete by acts of blackmail".

The Guardian - Sport

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

49 human-written examples

Barrister Francis Hoar said Rahman had been shown to be "in substance, dishonest".

Independent

This is in substance what the law does.

Cornell University

It was, in substance, a free pass away from the front.

The New York Times

She believes they need to be in substance abuse treatment instead.

The New York Times

This is, in substance, an application for the 'Information Card' provided for in § 44.03 d).

Cornell University

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using the phrase, ensure that the context clearly indicates what two entities or concepts are being compared. Avoid ambiguity by explicitly stating both subjects of comparison.

Common error

Avoid using "were in substance" when you actually mean 'were similar'. The phrase implies a much stronger equivalence. Reserve it for cases where differences are superficial and the underlying reality is identical.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "were in substance" functions as a linking phrase, asserting that two or more things are fundamentally the same despite potential differences in appearance. Ludwig AI confirms its grammatical correctness and usability. This is demonstrated in Ludwig's examples where legal documents or actions are deemed equivalent in their core nature.

Expression frequency: Uncommon

Frequent in

Academia

40%

News & Media

50%

Science

10%

Less common in

Formal & Business

0%

Encyclopedias

0%

Wiki

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "were in substance" is used to indicate that two or more things are essentially the same, despite superficial differences. Ludwig AI confirms its grammatical correctness, and it is commonly found in academic, news, and media contexts. It's important to use this phrase when you want to emphasize an underlying equivalence, ensuring that your writing is both accurate and precise. Remember to avoid using it as a synonym for 'similar', as it implies a much stronger degree of identity.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

were essentially

Focuses on the fundamental nature or essence, omitting the preposition 'in' and the noun 'substance'.

were fundamentally

Emphasizes the basic or foundational aspect of the equivalence.

were at heart

Highlights the core or central characteristic, differing in metaphorical tone.

were basically

Offers a simplified and more casual way to express the underlying similarity.

amounted to

Indicates that the final result or effect was the same, shifting the focus from composition to outcome.

were tantamount to

Suggests near equivalence in effect or value, introducing a formal and emphatic tone.

were virtually

Implies almost complete agreement or correspondence, highlighting the degree of similarity.

were effectively

Highlights the practical outcome or result, suggesting the same consequences.

were practically

Indicates similarity from a practical point of view, emphasizing functionality.

were for all intents and purposes

A longer phrase that stresses the perspective from which the things are the same.

FAQs

How can I use "were in substance" in a sentence?

Use "were in substance" to indicate that two things are essentially the same despite superficial differences. For example, "The two contracts, though worded differently, "were in substance" identical".

What can I say instead of "were in substance"?

You can use alternatives like "were essentially", "were fundamentally", or "amounted to" depending on the nuance you wish to convey.

Which is correct, "were in substance the same" or "were substantially the same"?

Both phrases are grammatically correct, but they have slightly different meanings. "Were in substance the same" emphasizes the underlying essence, while "were substantially the same" focuses on a significant degree of similarity.

What's the difference between "were in substance" and "were in essence"?

"Were in substance" suggests that the core content or practical effect is the same. "Were in essence", on the other hand, implies that the fundamental nature or defining quality is identical.