Grammar Moses: Combining 'in' and 'to' can get you into trouble

Just as we all have our aversions to certain kinds of food or music, we all recoil at certain idioms or quirks of the language.

At least my friends and pen pals do.

Bill Mutert takes issue with the transformational result of erroneously combining "in" and "to" into "into."

"Into" is a word with myriad definitions. You drive your car into the garage. You drive your car into another car, resulting in the shaking of fists and the filing of insurance claims. You kiss a frog and turn it into a prince. You're not really into amphibians, but, hey, you saw "The Shape of Water" and figure you're willing to try anything once.

But I digress. Bill's complaint was with a popular news aggregation website that reported on the arrest of UFC combatant Conor McGregor on charges he took on a larger foe than normal: a bus.

"UFC fighter Conor McGregor turned himself into the New York Police Department following Thursday's incident at media day for UFC 223 ..." the report read.

As Bill rightly points out, this is a case in which "in" and "to" should be two words. Conor McGregor's turning himself "into" police is analogous to turning a frog into a prince.

So, McGregor in effect is transforming himself into the NYPD.

If Conor McGregor really wants to do that, who am I to try to stop him?

Ever since

Not every gaffe creates alternate realities.

One reader who wishes to remain anonymous writes: "Your column included a phrase that has always bothered me - 'Ever since.' That seems like awful use of the English language! Why not simply 'since'? This phrase falls into the 'extremely annoying' category. It is joined by the phrase 'that being said.'"

Some people love kiwis, despite their combination of disgusting textures. And some inexplicably don't find the textures an impediment to their enjoyment of the citrusy/strawberry flavor hidden within.

I'm only mildly annoyed by the superfluous "ever" in "ever since."

And I occasionally employ "that being said" as a segue to my conclusions.

That being said, if you don't like it don't use it.

Enough is enough

Don Mingesz has a word for extraneous words that I rather like: "puffery."

I'm sure Don already is shaking his head, labeling my use of "rather" in the previous sentence "puffery."

Some of the things that drive Don up a wall: "At the end of the day," "enough is enough," and "the fact of the matter."

All are accepted idioms in wide usage.

Don's dissection of "enough is enough": It implies the number of something below a certain level is not enough. "When speaking about violence, 'enough is enough' lacks strength: 'Enough!' is more like a moral command."

Sure, I can see that.

Idioms rarely hold up under dissection. They're often anachronistic, and unless you're willing to do the research you probably use some of them in everyday speech without knowing what they truly mean or how the came into use. I've been guilty of that.

If you're on the ball, you'll have divined that I will never again try to eat a kiwi. Furthermore, I always remove the gooey brain from the tomato before I put it on a burger.

I view language in much the same way. Use what you like and discard the rest. Life is too short to use words you don't like.

Write carefully!

• Jim Baumann is vice president/managing editor of the Daily Herald. Write him at jbaumann@dailyherald.com. Put Grammar Moses in the subject line. You also can friend or follow Jim at facebook.com/baumannjim.