He succeeded in persuading the young lady into(to) marriage with him?

[keannu]

If "into" works for the below as it means state change or conversion from a place to another, does "to" also work as it's used for reaching something or result?

ex)He succeeded in persuading the young lady intooops:to) marriage with him.

 

[Coolfootluke]

I am not a teacher.

No. "Marriage" gets special treatment, it seems. We enter into it. We do the same with contracts and the like.

Your sentence is slightly unidiomatic even with "into" (He succeeded in persuading the young lady into marriage with him.). The words are in the right order, but my American ear wants the infinitive with "persuade", and "marriage with him" sounds old fashioned: "He succeeded in persuading the young lady to marry him."

 

[keannu]

I am not a teacher.

No. "Marriage" gets special treatment, it seems. We enter into it. We do the same with contracts and the like.

Your sentence is slightly unidiomatic even with "into" (He succeeded in persuading the young lady into marriage with him.). The words are in the right order, but my American ear wants the infinitive with "persuade", and "marriage with him" sounds old fashioned: "He succeeded in persuading the young lady to marry him."

What about "into marrying him"? Does it also make sense?
And if you say "into marriage with him" or "Tom married with Jane", it means there were two marriage events, not one. It means Tom married another girl, while Jane married another boy. Right?

 

[SoothingDave]

What about "into marrying him"? Does it also make sense?
And if you say "into marriage with him" or "Tom married with Jane", it means there were two marriage events, not one. It means Tom married another girl, while Jane married another boy. Right?

No one would say "Tom married with Jane" to mean that the two of them are both married, but not to each other.

 

[keannu]

No one would say "Tom married with Jane" to mean that the two of them are both married, but not to each other.

If non-native speakers said that by mistake, wouldn't you take it as two separate marriages? What I mean is, natives speakers don't do it on purpose, but how would you take its nuance?

 

[5jj]

If non-native speakers said that by mistake, wouldn't you take it as two separate marriages? What I mean is, natives speakers don't do it on purpose, but how would you take its nuance?

Those of us who work in TEFL/TESOL would understand what the speaker meant. Others might have to ask the speaker what they meant.

 

[SoothingDave]

If non-native speakers said that by mistake, wouldn't you take it as two separate marriages? What I mean is, natives speakers don't do it on purpose, but how would you take its nuance?

I would take it that you meant Tom was married to Jane, and that you did not know that you didn't need a preposition.

To mean separate marriages, you could say "Tom and Jane are both married."

 

[keannu]

Those of us who work in TEFL/TESOL would understand what the speaker meant. Others might have to ask the speaker what they meant.

I've always told my students that marry with could mean two weddings, but I was mistaken, I feel really ashamed. I would never make that mistake again. Thank you and SoothingDave for correcting me, thank you!

 

[Tdol]

It could work if you used along with for two marriages.