Teacher Discussion Forums

Which would you say "immerse into water" or "immerse in water"?

in

lolwhites wrote:in

Me too.

I suppose I might accept into depending on how he object is being immersed. If you plunge it into a sink full of water, you could argue for into water but if you put it in an empty bath, then turned the taps on and waited for it to fill up, I can't see how the object could be described as being immersed "into water".

How about here? Which would you choose?

"Immersion into/in a language is the only real way to learn to speak that language as only a native can."

Both.

It's the difference between "dancing into the swimming pool" and "dancing in the swimming pool", isn't it?

"Immersion into a foreign language" sounds like day 1 in a flat in Spain with only Spanish tv, neighbours, papers, signs, etc (it was a shock and it did concentrate the mind wonderfully).

But then I've always thought that "jump in the pool" should really mean "jump when in the pool" in a perfect and precise world.

Hmm. This has got me thinking. I've never come across "immerse into" before.

Here are results from an/a:

American Perspective

"immersion into / in" site:nytimes.com = 198 / 6.010

"immersion into / in" site:usatoday.com = 6 / 98

-----------------------------------------------------------------

British Perspective:

"immersion into / in" site:bbc.co.uk = 28 / 238

"immersion into / in" site:guardian.co.uk = 23 / 404

"immersion into" site:independent.co.uk = 1 / 62

Yes, but "immerse in/into" what, exactly? I can see how immersion "into" a language would work - it's there and you take the plunge, hence the idea of "into" i.e. movement (albeit not physical). It's less clear with water as, like I said before, you can plunge something into a bowl of water or place it in an empty bath with the taps on. In the former case, I think both would be possible, but in the latter, into wouldn't work.

lolwhites wrote:Yes, but "immerse in/into" what, exactly? I can see how immersion "into" a language would work - it's there and you take the plunge, hence the idea of "into" i.e. movement (albeit not physical). It's less clear with water as, like I said before, you can plunge something into a bowl of water or place it in an empty bath with the taps on. In the former case, I think both would be possible, but in the latter, into wouldn't work.

Here's a response I got on another forum:

It's from the Latin, in- + mergere = to merge [with a liquid]. I'll vote for "immerse in" since 1) "immerse" implies the object is already in the liquid before it's submerged, and 2) one could claim the "im-" suffix means "in", so saying "immerse into" would be really saying "submerge in into".

I'm always a bit sceptical of explanations on the "correct" usage of English terms that go back to the Latin roots. I would imagine all kinds of widely accepted language would have to be ruled out using such criteria. The poster sounds a bit of a grammar lawyer to me.

Yeah, on that basis you couldn't say "impose upon" because it means "put in upon".

JuanTwoThree wrote:Yeah, on that basis you couldn't say "impose upon" because it means "put in upon".

Exactly