Quote:
Originally Posted by dogsbody70
So much nit picking. enjoy yourselves folks correcting this poor old lady.
|
Well, if it makes you feel any better, I'm about to correct the correctors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuRaSaKiiNkI
I'm graduating with a BA in English and Writing (also a native English speaker), and I agree with Columbine on this one--"into" is used for large entities, sort of taking over a certain perimeter, like a country. Moving "into" something is similar, in Hitler's case, to "invading" something. "To" is used for singular people or small groups who are just relocating without much ado. :P sorry to butt in!
|
While I agree with Columbine and MuRaSaKiiNkI about the use of "to" vs. "into" in this case, I'm not sure their rationale is correct. I think the key difference here is not the size of the group, but the nature of the move: whether it is a total and complete relocation or just an expansion into new ground.
When a person moves
to a new home, the person is completely relocating himself.
When a group or organization moves
into a territory, it is not completely relocating itself; it is simply expanding into territory it didn't occupy before.
But it is also possible for a large group or organization to completely and permanently relocate itself. In that case, I think you would use "
to", not "into". Since such actions don't happen as often, it's harder to think of examples, but they do exist: for example "the Japanese government moved to Tokyo".