# EN: divide, cut, etc. + in / into



## fubuki

Bonjour !

Peut-on dire indifféremment :
- the project is divided *in *several steps
- the project is divided *into *several steps

Si ce n'est pas le cas, quelle différence ?

Merci


----------



## sound shift

Bonjour,

Je n'emploierais jamais la première de ces deux phrases, mais la seconde me paraît tout à fait correcte.


----------



## fubuki

Bonjour sound shift,

j'ai trouvé les 2 dans le dictionnaire mais n'ai pas compris leur différence.
Cependant je te fais confiance si tu dis que la première proposition ne te satisfait pas et donc j'emploierai la seconde.

Merci


----------



## L'Inconnu

Which preposition should you use? Well, suppose the sentence where in French, which one would you chose?

   “The project is divided *in *several steps”
  "Le projet est divisé *dans* plusieurs étapes."

  “The project is divided *into *several steps”
  "Le projet est divisé *en* plusieurs étapes."

  The first sentence seems to place more emphasis on action. Dans la première étape, on fait une division. Dans la deuxième étape, on fait une autre division, etc. The second sentence illustrates the steps as if they were individual pieces of a larger whole, somewhat like dividing a pie into several pieces. La tarte est divisée en tranches.  

  While there seems to be a subtle difference in meaning between the two sentences, I don’t know which is correct in English. I expect, however, that either one will be understood. Likewise, I expect that French Canadians would understand either French phrase.


----------



## Maître Capello

If you're talking about the English sentence as I think, I would have said the opposite, namely that the second sentence places more emphasis on action because _into_ is more "dynamic" than _in_ which is more "static"…

At any rate I would never say _to divide in_, whereas _to *be* divided in_, although not as idiomatic as _to be divided into_ doesn't seem so bad (but I may be wrong of course! ).

PS – _Le projet est divisé dans plusieurs étapes._  _Le projet est divisé *en* plusieurs étapes._


----------



## geostan

For either one, I would always say _into_.


----------



## CapnPrep

Like sound shift and geostan, I strongly prefer "into", but the OED does give a number of examples of "divide in":


 1380 Crist devydiþ al man~kynde *in *þre partis.
 1382 Deuydith, he seith, the quyk child *in* two parties.
 1526 Whan we come to the yeres of discrecyon, than we deuyde *in* two partes, two companyes & two wayes.
1593 Bubbling from her breast, it [the blood] doth divide *In* two slow rivers.
 1853 The rod or staff is divided at right angles *in* two pieces.
Obviously not all of these are modern English. But the use of "in" instead of "into" is found in "current usage after the verbs _cast_, _fall_, _lay_, _put_, _throw_, _thrust_, etc., _divide_, _split_, _break_, etc." (s.v. "in"):


1876 This dreadful schism..which splits them, as it were, *in* two beings.


----------



## doinel

Why do your examples only mention Two ?
Maybe when it comes to more irregular parts should we use into?
Is it something about being parallel?
The text falls into three parts
Or the text falls in two parts.


----------



## loulou40

Hello everybody,
I would like to understand the difference between "divided in" and "divided into". 
For example, in the sentence "France is divided in/into several regions", I don't know which one is correct.
Thank you


----------



## boterham

A ma connaissance, seul "into" est correct...


----------



## geostan

boterham said:


> A ma connaissance, seul "into" est correct...


----------



## Stargazer29

I realise this is more than a month old, but someone else asked the same question.

In general, the verb 'divide' is followed by the preposition 'into'.

-I will divide the apple into six pieces.
-He divided the box into thirds (three parts).

However, if two is the outcome, you use 'in'.

-I will divide the apple in two.
-He divided the room in half.

This is possibly because saying, "into two" has a repetitive 'tu' sound ... comme un costume de ballet, n'est-ce pas?


----------



## jann

I don't know that the "rule," if it even exists, is actually so strict. 

I would say that if the outcome is a numeral, you will often use "in" instead of "into."
- I will divide the apple in two, in three, in six.

If the outcome is a fractional denominator, I think you may use either "in" or "into"... but we always say "in half."
- I will divide the apple in/into thirds, in/into quarters, in/into sixths.
- I will divide the apple in half.

If your outcome is a noun modified by a numeral adjective, I think we do tend to use "into" instead... but I can't say that "in" would be totally wrong.
- I will divide the apple into two halves.
- I will divide the apple into six parts.
- Divide the filling into three equal portions.


----------



## tilt

L'Inconnu said:


> "Le projet est divisé *dans* plusieurs étapes."


_Diviser dans _is not said in French_.
_ 


jann said:


> we always say "in half."


Don't you rather say _in halves_?


----------



## englishman

tilt said:


> Don't you rather say _in halves_?



No. In BE at least, it's always "in half". 

And I suspect the suggestion that you can "divide in thirds/quarters/sixths" is AE only, as it sounds unusual to me. I would always say "divide into thirds .."


----------



## MikeTin

In the dictionary "divide in two" is correct, and nothing else. Use "divide into" in other sentences.


----------



## pmin

Would you say: 
-cut it i*nto two p*arts
or
-cut it *in two *parts

Thanks


----------



## midlifecrisis

both sound fine to me. 'into' is possibly the preferred usage - in your example, people may say 'in two parts' to avoid the 'to two' phonetic repetition, whereas subsequently 'into three parts' etc may be more common.  but there's not much in it.


----------



## jann

As I mentioned in my previous post in this thread, I think "into two  parts" would be the more frequent version due to the presence of the noun  "parts."





midlifecrisis said:


> in your example, people may say 'in two parts' to avoid the 'to two' phonetic repetition,


On the flip side, from the phonetic point of view, the risk of saying "cut it in two parts" is that this might be misunderstood as "cut it into parts," and then the specific instruction to cut it in half (and not just into an indefinite number of pieces) would be lost. 

The emphasis pattern will certainly be different between "into parts" and "in two parts," allowing us to distinguish between them... but things can always be misheard, and in the case of a non-native speaker, there's an increased probability that things may be mispronounced.


----------

