Quote:
Originally Posted by ColinHowell
Well, if it makes you feel any better, I'm about to correct the correctors. 
While I agree with Columbine and MuRaSaKiiNkI about the use of "to" vs. "into" in this case, I'm not sure their rationale is correct. I think the key difference here is not the size of the group, but the nature of the move: whether it is a total and complete relocation or just an expansion into new ground.
When a person moves to a new home, the person is completely relocating himself.
When a group or organization moves into a territory, it is not completely relocating itself; it is simply expanding into territory it didn't occupy before.
But it is also possible for a large group or organization to completely and permanently relocate itself. In that case, I think you would use " to", not "into". Since such actions don't happen as often, it's harder to think of examples, but they do exist: for example "the Japanese government moved to Tokyo". |
Mm, that's what I was trying to get across; that a move INTO somewhere is more continuous than a move TO somewhere. Which is why "He goes into the room" and "He goes to the room" actually have different meanings. In the second he might not have actually entered the room yet, and gives the nuance that he's stationary by the end of the sentence.