Into vs. In to
[#permalink]
09 Jul 2015, 08:57
These two quite simple words still bother me. My understanding is that the use of "into" and "in to" are identified by its proximity to the verb or noun (the closest of the verb or noun that it follows). But is that necessarily true?
E.g.: "Mystique transformed back in to herself." The use of "in to" seems correct here, although transforming is an action that changes the subject and "in to" is closer to the verb (transformed) than the subject (Mystique). Though, "herself" is closer to the words "in to". (X-Men example...)
Furthermore:
- Into is directional, usually in the present tense and refers to an action (verb)
E.g.: "I ran into the wall." is the correct use of "into" because "into" refers to the action of running and not the subject directly, usually (always?)
- In to is positional, and refers to the position of an object (noun).
E.g.: "I placed my jacket in to the closet." "in to" is the correct use because "in to" refers to the jacket and not the action of placing it there.
When in doubt, my other thought I made up is to form the opposite thought and make it parallel with the words, "away from" and "out of". It's essentially the same thing as the rule of directional vs. positional, but it tests the use of "into" and "in to", as opposed to relying solely on whether the respective words are tied more to the verb or noun. In other words:
- Into-away from
E.g.: "I ran away from the wall." The phrase "away from" is clearly directional. If using "away from" in the opposite sense works, then "into" is correct. Using "out of" doesn't make sense, e.g. "I ran out of the wall." (though technically possible in rare contexts only).
- In to-Out of
E.g. "I took my jacket out of the closet." "out of" makes sense here despite the change in verb; whereas, the use of "away from" doesn't make sense if you change the verb or not.
Going back to the Mystique example...
E.g.: "Mystique transformed away from herself." doesn't seem to make much sense.
E.g.: "Mystique transformed out of herself (and in to Professor Xavier)." makes more sense to me. The phrase inside of the parenthesis makes a more complete thought, and actually it makes sense to use "in to" because one is not transforming "through" Professor Xavier.
Is the use of "into- away from" and "in to-out of" a surefire way to test which of the two are correct?
I believe this also applies to the use of "into" vs "in". Come to think of it, perhaps another rule is, if you can drop either the "in" or the "to", then it's "in to"; otherwise, it's "into".