A grammar issue I've just tuned in to – or into?

A question from a dinner guest prompts a closer look at the nuances of ‘into’ and ‘in to.’

Regis Divignau
The log-on screen for Facebook is displayed.

The long-awaited and much-postponed dinner with friends had finally come off, after months of rescheduling. And at some point between the main course and the dessert, conversation somehow turned, as sometimes happens at a wordsmith’s dinner party, to issues of grammar. 

OK, one of my guests began, we all know the difference between in and into. But what about the difference between into and in to?

Hmm, funny you should ask – I’ve been meaning to research this one.

We use into “to indicate movement toward the inside of a place,” as the late Jane Straus wrote on her Grammar Book blog. “In to is the adverb in followed by the preposition to.”

The in/into distinction is straightforward: “He first moved into the city 10 years ago, and he’s been living in my neighborhood for the past five.”

But the in to/into distinction is trickier. To get it right, be clear on what your verb is. If it’s phrasal, you probably should stick with “in to” rather than “closing it up,” as editors say.

What’s a phrasal verb? It’s one made up of a verb plus an adverb or preposition. English is full of phrasal verbs: come in, go out, get on, get off, get across. They’re often idiomatic. That is, they are “established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from the meanings of the individual words,” as the Oxford English Dictionary puts it. Websites for English learners abound with lists of them, with definitions.

For example: “He turned his paper in to his teacher.” The verb is “turn in,” meaning “to deliver,” and so you need “in to,” not “into.” But there’s also an idiom “to turn into (something),” meaning “to be changed or transformed”: “He turned into a fine young man once he’d grown up.” That one takes “into.”

You might write in to your congressman, but an editor will sometimes write into a reporter’s story material from a wire service.

The close-up question also arises with log in and log on. (Some purist techies insist that log in is correct only with reference to Linux systems, but I think that distinction is lost on the masses, including the techie masses.)

Both “log” verbs can easily be seen as phrasal, and therefore requiring “in to” or “on to,” respectively: I logged in to my account.

Here’s how Ms. Straus put it in an exchange with a reader on this subject: “The real question to ask is, ‘Is there actual entrance?’ If so, use ‘into.’ ”

But somewhat later she opined, “ ‘Into’ implies entrance, which one could say is meant figuratively here, even if not literally. Therefore, I would ... say that either into or in to is acceptable.”

What about “tune in”? It’s clearly a phrasal verb. But here are some usage examples from Oxford Dictionaries: “you must tune into the needs of loved ones” (illustrating tune in) and then, to illustrate be tuned in: “it’s important to be tuned in to your child’s needs.”

We have “into” with one, and “in to” with the other. What’s up with that? Is it the distinction between the action of tuning in and the state of being tuned in that matters? Perhaps. That would be analogous to the earlier example of moving into/living in.

However much we long for clear-cut rules, some of these questions may have more than one reasonable answer. 

And we nitpickers may just have to live with that.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to A grammar issue I've just tuned in to – or into?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today