Difference between into and in to

I would like to point out that the foolish insistence on one's own familiar usage as the "correct" usage is at best provincial, and at worst, parochial--usage varies even within the United States or the United Kingdom. In this case, it's all straightforward--these usages vary from one country to the other and it is idiotic to insist that the usage with which one is familiar is the only "logical" usage. The functional test is whether one is understood, which is, of course what language is all about.

American visitor: "Excuse, i was told there is a butcher shop nearby."

Friendly English resident: "Oh yes, there's a butcher's shop in the High Street. If you go to that corner and turn left into Lord Edward Street, at the end of that street, you'll find yourself in the High Street, and the butcher's shop is opposite you, on the other side of the street."

An American might not say it that way, but it would be perfectly clear to any American who heard it.

I get very tired of people who make up rules and then try to claim they have logic on their side.

You make a good cheerleader . . . even though your hero has lost. Apparently, you wish to share in that loss. I will accommodate you. But first, I must tell you that you have a personality defect, Setanta. You believe that offering your opinion will lack effectiveness unless you frame it within a barrage of insults. What is the matter with you? Who taught you this lack of self-control? You're like an untrained dog who just can't stop snapping at everything it perceives as a threat.

Anyway, the OP asked whether or not the statement, "He turned into the road" is correct. Like Tes, you forget that the OP is asking what is grammatically correct, and not what British English speakers have decided is correct. All of the examples you have witlessly mentioned in your post have nothing to do with someone turning onto a road.

Stick to the topic Tes. Now you've degraded yourself further by using an example that is not similar to the OP's question. It doesn't work for Setanta, and it won't work for you.

"Perfectly clear" does not mean grammatically correct. You're pretending to be dense enough to not understand that.

As usual, you're wrong. Your puerile attempt at pop psychology doesn't alter that. "Turned into the road . . . " is grammatically correct. It may not be how you would say it, but i have no reason to think of you as some god of grammar. I note that you have ignored examples from American usage in which one says "into the street." It can be used for "into the road," as well. "I had to step into the road to avoid the crowd." It is hilarious to see someone pontificate about the usage of the language in a different country, especially the country in which the language originated.

I never speak to you or about you, other than in English learning threads. In those threads, you make up all manner of rules which don't in fact exist, and you squabble with those who do not agree with you--witness your reaction to Tes yeux before i even arrived here. In so doing, you are doing the language learner a disservice, all for sake of your ego, apparently. It seems very important to you to assert that you've "won." What did you win, Bubba?

Ed, what do we have for our winning contestant today?

Johnny, it's a brand new CAR!

You're pretending that there are grammar rules which do not in fact exist. Dense? I suspect you could sit on the Sunday paper and dangle your legs.

on·to
ˈänˌto͞o/Submit
preposition
1.
moving to a location on (the surface of something). A road perhaps?
____________________________

in·to
ˈin(t)o͞o,ˈin(t)ə/
preposition
1.
expressing movement or action with the result that someone or something becomes enclosed or surrounded by something else.

Now, unless you can tell me how it is that a road is something that encloses a car, then you are denying the definition of into. If you do not see that the word onto, as defined above, is the correct term concerning the OP's question, then you are here defending the idea that definitions change in order to not look ignorant. But definitions don't change just because it would be convenient to your failed logic.

But I'm going to help you. Let's start with this: What does the term grammatically correct mean. Do yourself a favor and think about it before you post an answer.

Do yourself a favor and stop pretending to be an expert in grammar, and stop pretending that English grammar is founded in logic. You continue to avoid the issue of many examples of "into" in American usage, which are commonly used to refer to movement with regard to streets, roads, etc. Your stupid logic argument would imply that "onto" must be used in all examples, and used with every description of thoroughfare. That is clearly not the case in English as it is used in the United States. Bob and weave and dodge, you cannot avoid that failure of your silly logic argument.

Here, I’ll help you some more. The OP asked which is correct. Take note that s/he did not ask which is acceptable. Perhaps you need to think about paying more attention to your surrounding. Then you wouldn’t find yourself defending what is acceptable when the question is which is correct. You’re in the grammar forum, not the “Whatever People Have Come to Accept as Correct” forum.

And I never said that onto must be used in all examples. The OP asked for what is correct in a given statement. And that is what I gave him.

By the way, it's good to see you italicizing words to indicate emphasis instead of combining italics with bold print. It's good because it makes you come across as less emotional.

Maybe you should pay enough attention to acknowledge that you are not the god of grammar who determines what is correct and what is incorrect. I have no reason to consider you an authority of any kind on English grammar. You continue to attempt to evade the undeniable fact that even in American usage, into the road can be used. Now you're attempting to make some idiotic and entirely false distinction between "acceptable" and "correct." Your claim to rectitude is entirely founded your claims of what is logical. You have provided absolutely zero authoritative sources which unambiguously state that "into the road" is grammatically incorrect. You continue to ignore that British usage is different, and you continue to erroneously suggest that it is grammatically incorrect just because it is not the usage you prefer. Hilariously, you continue to insist that you are entitled to claim, completely without any authority, that you can determine what is "grammatically correct," and what is not.

You are not an authority on grammar. You have presented no credentials for such a claim. You are apparently unable to take on board that the negotiation of what is acceptable usage is the source of grammatical rectitude.

You're a mess, and you arrogantly continue to speak to me as though i'm not bright enough to understand the "logic" of your position. In fact, i'm not so stupid as to fall for your completely unwarranted claim of "grammatical" authority--you have none.

The stench of self-righteous bullshit almost overpowers the thread. You tried that formatting con in another thread. Now you are marrying it to your puerile attempts at pop psychology. Psychology, along with English grammar, is another arena in which you have no basis to claim any authority.

No, you have provided absolutely zero authoritative sources which unambiguously state that "into the road" is grammatically correct.

So what? I'm not obliged to do so. You're the one making outrageously claims to an authority for which there is no reason to assume you actually possess said authority.

And while you're in a state, why don't you also provide some reference to something that would show that both bold type and italics can be used together to show emphasis?

No. What you mean is that you cannot do so.

No, what i mean is i'm not obliged to do so. I have stated that it is acceptable usage. I'm not concerned with your idiocy about what is or is not grammatically correct, which appears to be entirely founded on your preferred usage. You have claimed it is grammatically incorrect--but you have provided zero authority for your claim.

As reported by the NOAD, into has the following meanings:

expressing movement or action with the result that someone or something becomes enclosed or surrounded by something else. (Cover the bowl and put it into the fridge.) Doesn't sound like it pertains to a road.

expressing movement or action with the result that someone or something makes physical contact with something else. (He crashed into a parked car.) Doesn't sound like it pertains to a road.

indicating a route by which someone or something may arrive at a particular destination. (The narrow road that led down into the village.) Doesn't sound like it pertains to a road.

indicating the direction toward which someone or something is turned when confronting something else. (with the wind blowing into your face) Doesn't sound like it pertains to a road.

indicating an object of attention or interest. (a clearer insight into what is involved) Doesn't sound like it pertains to a road.

expressing a change of state. (a peaceful protest which turned into a violent confrontation) Doesn't sound like it pertains to a road.

expressing the result of an action. (They forced the club into a humiliating and expensive special general meeting.) Doesn't sound like it pertains to a road.

expressing division. (three into twelve equals four) Doesn't sound like it pertains to a road.

informal (of a person) taking a lively and active interest in something. (He's into surfing.) Doesn't sound like it pertains to a road.

onto means:

moving to a location on the surface of something. (They went up onto the ridge.) Sounds like it could pertain to a road.

moving aboard (a public conveyance) with the intention of traveling in it. (We got onto the train.)
______________________________________

Following your idea, it would be correct to say that you “get out of I-75 and turn into North 41.” I’ve never heard anyone say that. And that’s because they say that you “get off I-75 and onto North 41. And the reason they say that is because it makes more grammatical sense than getting out of and into roads.

Ever wonder why cops never say, “The suspect then got out of Center Street and turned into 4th Street”? Conversely, have you ever wondered why the cops always say, “The suspect then got/turned off Center Street and onto 4th Street”? It’s because they understand the difference between into and onto.

Translation: As much as I'd like to, I cannot do so.

Here, Glennnnnnn, this is of your enjoy the bright pretty colors.

No, it means i'm not obliged to support any claim i have not made.