1

Much later, he was eventually found by a Shinra agent, lying on the ground nearly dead in a secluded desert area in Nevada and taken in into a secret sacred headquarters in Roppongi, Tokyo, Japan.

I rarely see this phrase being used like this. I am wondering how grammatical and idiomatic this is. I understand this phrase to mean "accepted into" "let in into" followed by any location.

3
  • 2
    I think your cited use is a clumsy mash-up of two separate lexical items. Specifically, to take in = to receive as a guest or lodger, to give shelter to AS WELL AS the more "literal" sense taken / escorted/ carried into [some location envisaged as a "container"]. Effectively, he was "taken in" by an agent who "took him into" the HQ building. May 9, 2021 at 13:38
  • 2
    As I mentioned in a comment on your earlier question, you do not need both in and into. May 9, 2021 at 14:19
  • 2
    There’s a reason you rarely see this. It’s ungrammatical and clumsy. May 9, 2021 at 17:46

1 Answer 1

1

Much later, he was eventually found by a Shinra agent, lying on the ground nearly dead in a secluded desert area in Nevada and taken in into a secret sacred headquarters in Roppongi, Tokyo, Japan.

As Kate has commented, we do not need both in and into.

From the context, the verb take takes the following definition.

take verb (MOVE)

A1 [ T ]

to move something or someone from one place to another

Cambridge Dictionary

The example is messy and has a misplaced-modifier problem. Minimising changes to your original, I suggest

Much later, lying on the ground nearly dead in a secluded desert area in Nevada, he was found by a Shinra agent and taken into a secret sacred headquarters in Roppongi, Tokyo, Japan.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .