Why is 'onto' redundant?

[RJK]

When I write:
He turned onto Elm Street.

I'm told onto is redundant. I suppose I could say He turned into Elm Street.
Could I say He turned on Elm Street?

You can get onto a horse and you can get on a horse. I believe both are acceptable and neither is redundant.

I'm confused about Onto

[girlyswot]

When I write:
He turned onto Elm Street.

I'm told onto is redundant. I suppose I could say He turned into Elm Street.
Could I say He turned on Elm Street?

You can get onto a horse and you can get on a horse. I believe both are acceptable and neither is redundant.

I'm confused about Onto

Who says it's redundant?

I'd say 'on to' is probably more appropriate than 'onto' here, but you certainly need a preposition of some kind.

[RJK]

The message is coming from the automated editing program in Autocrit. I believe they are wrong, I have one dictionary source to back me up, but I'd like others before I write to them.

Aside from this issue, I haven't found anything to complain about the program.

[Albannach]

I think in this case, I think the objection is that "We turned on Elm Street" means the same thing as "We turned onto Elm Street" so part of "onto" might be redundant. I think it may be carrying pickiness a bit too far, but that's my opinion. :)

[girlyswot]

I think in this case, I think the objection is that "We turned on Elm Street" means the same thing as "We turned onto Elm Street" so part of "onto" might be redundant. I think it may be carrying pickiness a bit too far, but that's my opinion. :)

But they don't mean the same thing. In the first, the implication is that the car is already on Elm Street and then turns (a u-turn, perhaps, or a turn onto another street). In the second the car is on some other street and then makes a turn to end up on Elm Street.

[Chase]

Nothing wrong or redundant about "onto" in your sentence. As many have stated so many times in this section, trusting a grammar program is your main problem. At best they can only suggest you examine the sentence more carefully.

[PeterL]

The message is coming from the automated editing program in Autocrit. I believe they are wrong, I have one dictionary source to back me up, but I'd like others before I write to them.

Aside from this issue, I haven't found anything to complain about the program.

The problem isn't that "onto" is redundant; the problem is that the software sucks. Turn it off, or, if you really like it, then just ignore that stupid comment.

[Use Her Name]

The Why answer is that certain people set themselves up as the final word on useage and other people follow them blindly. That's the way acedemics work. If it is gramatical and correct, I would change it only if the editor of the company you wish to publish with requests the change. In the meantime, keep moving forward.

[Chase]

Yes, it's always those evil academics. Fire 'em all and hire those who wax poetic on public toilet walls.

However, the poster's point is he's not sure if it's grammatical, in this case because some computer geek programmed a program which mostly confounds lots of unsure writers.

This forum is hardly final word, but it's faster than scribbling the query on Wal-Mart's restroom stalls and checking back for replies.

[DeleyanLee]

The message is coming from the automated editing program in Autocrit. I believe they are wrong, I have one dictionary source to back me up, but I'd like others before I write to them.

Aside from this issue, I haven't found anything to complain about the program.

Please rememeber that every checker of this sort has a type of writing as a focus (fe: the one in MS Word if forced on business writing). I'd question whether or not a program can be comprehensive for fiction writing, given the vast differences between genre standards (Literary and Mystery don't have the same, AFAIK).

Without knowing the focus of the program and using it appropriately, you're more likely to mess up your writing (and knowledge of grammar) than helping yourself out.

This is why I don't bother with grammar checkers. While it's a PITA to learn, my knowing the rules is 2000% better than relying on someone else.

[Judg]

Another voice saying turn off the program.

[Jamesaritchie]

The problem isn't redundancy, the problem is that "onto" is the wrong word, for a street or for a horse. You don't turn "onto" a street, and you don't get "onto" a horse. Calling it redundant is probably the only way the program has of saying you're using the wrong word.

[Kisatchie]

The problem isn't redundancy, the problem is that "onto" is the wrong word, for a street or for a horse. You don't turn "onto" a street...

I've been turning onto streets my whole life. Here is what the American Heritage Dictionary has to say about on/onto:

Usage Note:
To indicate motion toward a position, both on and onto can be used: The cat jumped on the table. The cat jumped onto the table.

[blacbird]

You don't turn "onto" a street,

Your alternative is what? As has been pointed out above, to turn "on Elm Street" doesn't mean the same thing as to turn "onto Elm Street".

This is common usage of a common word, and commonly understood.

caw

[RJK]

I certainly enjoy starting these lively discussions. I think I have enough agreement that Onto is a perfectly good and appropriate word and was used correctly in my prose.
As some of you said, automated programs aren't perfect, they are designed by imperfect people, however, as we can see from the posts here, not everybody agrees on the correct use of the word, and I don't think you're all programs, are you?

[Judg]

*checks her coding*