Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

Third person, "getting to America" etc is quite common, so they do say it. In these cases it would seem to be used as a synonym for "go", or "travel"

"getting into" would seem to be a usage more closely linked to "arrive at" or "enter".

In the original example we were discussing, the much more likely sense of "cheaper" would be the cost of travel, since a cost of arriving makes little semantic sense.

[Loud Whispers]

Third person, "getting to America" etc is quite common, so they do say it.

Yaaaamean
I imagine the context they're using it is different though. Or else, blame it on the slang! The pen is mightier than the jacket! The pen! The pen! Long live the auctores!

[Reelya]

Now you're just being annoying, and not making sense. Words have multiple meanings and various synonyms.

Since we're talking cost of travel, googling the whole phrases below with quotes:

"it's cheaper to get to London" <= 1110 google hits
"it's cheaper to get into London"  <= 0 google hits

"cheaper to get to London" <= 24000 google hits
"cheaper to get into London"  <= 8 google hits

"it's cheaper to get to Australia" <= 1310 google hits
"it's cheaper to get into Australia"  <= 1 google hit

the word "getting" is irrelevant. as is first-person usage.

[Loud Whispers]

Well actually I just finished explaining my grammar-fu... 1, 2, 3 posts ago and am being the (as we call it here) funny.

Now you're just being annoying, and not making sense. Words have multiple meanings and various synonyms.

Aye

Since we're talking cost of travel:

Ok

"It's cheaper to get to London" <= 1000 google hits

Google : Patron of the English language
I for one, despise our Grandsire Googlelords.

So the word "getting" is irrelevant. As is first-person usage.

But when reading "it's cheaper to get to America," it sounds as if America is some state of mind, not an all-enveloping country you're trying to get into.
Trying to reach Americatenment sincerely sounds terrifying.

And it'd also be "it's cheaper to get into America."

Do you see? Yaamean?

[Reelya]

Sure it can mean that to you, all you want. Just be aware very few other people talk like that about the trip as a whole.

Try googling (with quotes) "i got to my destination" = 13 million hits.

"i got into my destination" = 9 hits.

[Loud Whispers]

I would like to point out how meaningless that is to me.

I'm sure that's something a few other people could get into.

He he, writing movements.

To sample the futility of this, Google not only tailors its searches to your history of searches, but often times the world is moronic when it comes to English.

Read youtube comments or Facebook ones. That's something you would rather stay out of.

[Reelya]

What I pointed out wasn't google's order of hits, I mentioned the total number of indexed articles in existence which contain a specific sentence structure. Those are two completely different fish. googles "tailoring" makes no difference to the total number of articles which exist, it only changes the ordering (which was not part of my argument so seems like a red herring). You should know better than that.

When thirteen million separate articles in the world contain the exact phrase "i got to my destination", and only nine total contain "i got into my destination" (a factor of over 1 million to 1), it's disingenuous to go "pfft! online English sucks". Google hits includes uploaded printed books, etc.

It's clear from almost universal lack of articles using the 2nd sentence structure, that's a rare variant, and the first one is "normal usage", i.e. used by the overwhelming majority of the population. Is something slang if 99.9999% of people consider it normal usage?

[Helgoland]

Question: What kind of black tea should I buy?

[Frumple]

The good kind.

What options do you have?

[Loud Whispers]

What I pointed out wasn't google's order of hits, I mentioned the total number of indexed articles in existence

Google doesn't contain the entire database of mankind nor does it show all of it.

Google's "tailoring" makes no difference to the total number of articles which exist, it only changes the ordering (which was not part of my argument so seems like a red herring).

Aaaand doesn't show the stuff it deems UNWORTHY. Hence, deep web.

You should know better than that.

1. I shouldn't.
2. I do.
3. You don't.
4. There is no spoon.

When thirteen million separate articles in the world contain the exact phrase "i got to my destination", and only nine total contain "i got into my destination" (a factor of over 1 million to 1), it's disingenuous to go "pfft! online English sucks".

Ahem.
You.
Tube.
When 6 billion fanatics scream the sky is falling down...

Is the sky falling down?

Google hits includes uploaded printed books, etc.

Twilight is a printed book; ergo Twilight sets the precedent for what counts as proper grammar.

It's clear from almost universal lack of articles using the 2nd sentence structure, that's a rare variant, and the first one is "normal usage",

Good logic, unreasonable argument.

i.e. used by the overwhelming majority of the population. Is something slang if 99.9999% of people consider it normal usage?

1. Bad data.
2. Bad assumption.
3. Bad assertion.
4. Bad implication.

The majority will and can often get things wrong. Like maths, people are not born with a comprehensive grasp of how to do it.
The majority of people will not share the same access of education, nor will most express this on the internet.
You are searching for a word that will get used far less than another. If I search "AND" as opposed to "FURTHERMORE", I get 21 billion hits as opposed to 201 million.
This demonstrates that:
1. Google does not include the entirety of the internet; if it grabbed every article ever linked with "and" running in it, it would not be able to grab that information in 2 seconds. It would likely explode.
2. And is clearly used far more than furthermore. This makes furthermore a rare variant. By this logic, "and" is slang and for some reason also takes precedent of "furthermore."

On this:

Is something slang if 99.9999% of people consider it normal usage?

Yes. Anyone who says Chav in the UK would know what it means; by no means is it more than slang though.

Question: What kind of black tea should I buy?

Hmmm... If you want a simple cup of tea I'd just go for Earl Grey or PG tips. Though in truth my tea-fu has been lacking for some while, so I am much interested in the responses as well.

[Helgoland]

I meant what should I look out for when buying black tea (in a special store, not the supermarket).
I don't like aromatised tea so much, what about "pure" tea? (I really don't know that much about it either.)

[Reelya]

What I pointed out wasn't google's order of hits, I mentioned the total number of indexed articles in existence

Google doesn't contain the entire database of mankind nor does it show all of it.

The indexed internet may not contain every word ever written, but several billion indexed articles are more than enough to count as a statistical sample. Unless you can show some evidence that the index articles on the 'net are massively biased in some specific way that supports your argument about "get to" vs "get into".

Aaaand doesn't show the stuff it deems UNWORTHY. Hence, deep web.

Again, where's your evidence that google has a bias against phrases of the form "it's cheaper to get into London" or  "it's cheaper to get into Australia" vs the much more common "it's cheaper to get to London" or  "it's cheaper to get to Australia" 

If you can't show some reason or evidence for the bias, attacking google is a ridiculous line of argument. If google somehow believes articles that contain your chosen grammar are "unworthy" why would that be? it's not like I personally rigged all the articles indexed by Google to win this argument.

I showed that one form of the statement was massively more common than the other, your response is that the entire internet is rigged against you?

When thirteen million separate articles in the world contain the exact phrase "i got to my destination", and only nine total contain "i got into my destination" (a factor of over 1 million to 1), it's disingenuous to go "pfft! online English sucks".

Ahem.
You.
Tube.
When 6 billion fanatics scream the sky is falling down...

Is the sky falling down?

I showed that the 13 million statements exist (and only 9 for the alternate formulation), since this is an argument about language usage, it makes no sense to argument about the veracity of the statements, since the existence of the statements in the first place, is what is under debate.

The existence of 6 billion youtube fanatics screaming "the sky is falling down..." proves that there are 6 billion youtube fanatics screaming "the sky is falling down...".

An analogy to this line of debate, would be me arguing "everyone says 'the moon is made of green cheese' " and me providing evidence that they do indeed say that. and you respond "but the moon isn't made of green cheese, so you're wrong!". but I never claimed that it was in actuality made of cheese, I just claimed that people said that it was (the same as your youtube users screaming about the sky falling).

Google hits includes uploaded printed books, etc.

Twilight is a printed book; ergo Twilight sets the precedent for what counts as proper grammar.

Wow, that's an exceptionally poor form of argument. I'm arguing from the collection of billions of index English pages & texts, fiction and non-fiction, and you can only counter with "Twilight sets the precedent for what counts as proper grammar".

That's like me saying "50 million people voted for Obama" and you countering with "i know a guy who's a moron who voted for Obama, therefore that one moron got Obama elected". Actually, it was him, plus the other 50 million people. By the same argument Twilight plus the several billion other pages in English reflect and influence normal usage.

Is something slang if 99.9999% of people consider it normal usage?

Yes. Anyone who says Chav in the UK would know what it means; by no means is it more than slang though.

So the phrase "how to i get to the shops from here" is "slang", or somehow unusual, in the same sense as "Chav" is?

The majority will and can often get things wrong. Like maths, people are not born with a comprehensive grasp of how to do it.
The majority of people will not share the same access of education, nor will most express this on the internet.
You are searching for a word that will get used far less than another. If I search "AND" as opposed to "FURTHERMORE", I get 21 billion hits as opposed to 201 million.

With 13 million utterances for "i got to my destination" vs 9, for "i got into my destination", that makes the first one standard usage.

Also, the very common "How do i get to..."

Ok, show me a source which clarifies this. You haven't liked my examples showing it's common usage, you say one is considered incorrect, whilst the other is considered correct. So show me proof.

BTW "furthermore" does not always make much sense to always replace "and":
"Fish furthermore chips"?
"A mop furthermore a bucket"?

[Darvi]

LW, you're fighting a losing battle of pedantry here. First, Reelya has a point, and second, Merriam Webster says "to" is correct in this situation.

a —used as a function word to indicate movement or an action or condition suggestive of movement toward a place, person, or thing reached <drove to the city> <went back to the original idea> <went to lunch>

"Into" is correct when entry is the main action of the sentence, but in the case of getting somewhere, the change of location is the focus, in which case "to" gets used.

[Loud Whispers]

I feel bad for laughing, but coupling is necessary.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

English contest question:
"Most areas in Africa are far cheaper to get  ___ than packaged travel agents would have you believe"
What phrasal verb should I use there?

"into" doesn't seem like the obvious choice.

"get to" would seem more natural. "get around" is possible, but more clunky.

You just wouldn't say "I'm going into Montana" for example, you'd say "I'm going to Montana"

It's got the present infinitive "to get" and the accusative "to be" as "are", making it to be an ablative construction so "in" becomes "into."

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That's was what I was thinking. If it said "easier" as the active verb. "Easier to get into" would make sense, whereas "Cheaper" implies the cost of travel to the place, hence "Cheaper to get to". Unless they're talking about bribing border guards xD

But you would say "it is cheaper to get into," in that case too.
Also
       

• Easier = not a verb, it is an adverb.

Into is used when movement is conveyed, if I am IN something, no movement is shown. If I move INTO something, it shows I have moved from somewhere to where I am now.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

But that's just not how people normally talk :/

"How do I get to XXXX" is normal.

"How do I get into XXXX" isn't normal.

Where I come from that's normal.
Coincidentally that's also where the English language was invented.

If you're asking for directions "to" is used. If you're asking how to get inside something, i.e. a building, "into" is used.
If you're getting into a country, into is used. You wouldn't say you are getting to a country.

In any case how the people around you shouldn't affect written word, for the most part writing effects and grammatical rules stay constant with the addition of things like easy access dictionaries and reading material; and writing often differs greatly from the words we use; most of the slang native English speakers use would be easily understandable to most all other English speakers, yet would find little semblance when written or typed onto paper; yaamean?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

What I pointed out wasn't google's order of hits, I mentioned the total number of indexed articles in existence

Google doesn't contain the entire database of mankind nor does it show all of it.

The indexed internet may not contain every word ever written, but several billion indexed articles are more than enough to count as a statistical sample. Unless you can show some evidence that the index articles on the 'net are massively biased in some specific way that supports your argument about "get to" vs "get into".

Aaaand doesn't show the stuff it deems UNWORTHY. Hence, deep web.

Again, where's your evidence that google has a bias against phrases of the form "it's cheaper to get into London" or  "it's cheaper to get into Australia" vs the much more common "it's cheaper to get to London" or  "it's cheaper to get to Australia" 

If you can't show some reason or evidence for the bias, attacking google is a ridiculous line of argument. If google somehow believes articles that contain your chosen grammar are "unworthy" why would that be? it's not like I personally rigged all the articles indexed by Google to win this argument.

I showed that one form of the statement was massively more common than the other, your response is that the entire internet is rigged against you?

When thirteen million separate articles in the world contain the exact phrase "i got to my destination", and only nine total contain "i got into my destination" (a factor of over 1 million to 1), it's disingenuous to go "pfft! online English sucks".

Ahem.
You.
Tube.
When 6 billion fanatics scream the sky is falling down...

Is the sky falling down?

I showed that the 13 million statements exist (and only 9 for the alternate formulation), since this is an argument about language usage, it makes no sense to argument about the veracity of the statements, since the existence of the statements in the first place, is what is under debate.

The existence of 6 billion youtube fanatics screaming "the sky is falling down..." proves that there are 6 billion youtube fanatics screaming "the sky is falling down...".

An analogy to this line of debate, would be me arguing "everyone says 'the moon is made of green cheese' " and me providing evidence that they do indeed say that. and you respond "but the moon isn't made of green cheese, so you're wrong!". but I never claimed that it was in actuality made of cheese, I just claimed that people said that it was (the same as your youtube users screaming about the sky falling).

Google hits includes uploaded printed books, etc.

Twilight is a printed book; ergo Twilight sets the precedent for what counts as proper grammar.

Wow, that's an exceptionally poor form of argument. I'm arguing from the collection of billions of index English pages & texts, fiction and non-fiction, and you can only counter with "Twilight sets the precedent for what counts as proper grammar".

That's like me saying "50 million people voted for Obama" and you countering with "i know a guy who's a moron who voted for Obama, therefore that one moron got Obama elected". Actually, it was him, plus the other 50 million people. By the same argument Twilight plus the several billion other pages in English reflect and influence normal usage.

Is something slang if 99.9999% of people consider it normal usage?

Yes. Anyone who says Chav in the UK would know what it means; by no means is it more than slang though.

So the phrase "how to i get to the shops from here" is "slang", or somehow unusual, in the same sense as "Chav" is?

I have been defeated by a master of semantics, my Grammar-fu was no match for you. I COMMIT SEPPUKU FOR THE HONOUR OF MY FAMILY
*URghuhtuher....*

Ha ha, no. But you do see how ridiculous you're being? Not to mention you're adding personal charge which could turn this into a flame war.

Perhaps I'm not using enough smileys, so you can't see I'm not on SRS BSNS as opposed to grammar patrol.

  is this better ?

Who's right? YOU DECIDE!

[Darvi]

Son, I am disappoint. For a moment there I was expecting you to bring out some quotes from Coupling.

Then again, I was also wondering how lesbians would contribute to this thread.