united into vs united under

Both phrases are correct, but they are used in different contexts. 'United into' is used when referring to merging or combining separate entities into one, while 'united under' is used when describing a situation where one entity is under the authority or leadership of another.

Last updated: March 23, 2024 • 637 views

united into

This phrase is correct and commonly used when referring to merging or combining separate entities into one.

This phrase is used when describing the process of bringing together separate entities to form a single entity or group.

Examples:

The two companies were united into a single corporation.
The tribes were united into a powerful alliance.
The ingredients were united into a delicious dish.

Show examples from the web [+]

And I am surprised to have to remind the noble Baroness, who purports to be such an expert, that the 12 tribes of the Israelites were in fact first united into the kingdom of Israel over three thousand years ago.
These little fundamental strings, when they vibrate in different patterns, they produce different kinds of particles - so electrons, quarks, neutrinos, photons, all other particles would be united into a single framework, as they would all arise from vibrating strings.
Cantona takes it in his stride and fires Manchester United into the lead.
And these are people obviously crossing from the United States into Mexico.
Pearl Harbor plunged the United States into war.
Imports into the United States, into Canada, China and Japan are subject to country of origin marking.
You see, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, drawing the United States into a massive world war.
People simply moved their money-laundering activities away from the United States into Europe.
The Irish authorities also traced all animals introduced from the United Kingdom into Ireland and ordered their killing.
His only regret was that an agreement on Cyprus enabling the entry of a united Island into the EU to take place had not been achieved.
His only regret was that an agreement on Cyprus enabling the entry of a united Island into the EU to take place had not been achieved.
There are some who are making the United States into a bogeyman.
As you are aware, we would prefer - as we always have done - to welcome a united Cyprus into membership on 1 May.
That has now made the United States into, no longer a force for progress, but something very different: often a force for destruction in the world.
I should like to state that I am categorically opposed to the Commission's plans to authorise imports of chemically disinfected poultrymeat from the United States into the EU.
Will you now work to bring the United Kingdom into the euro in the post-recession period?
In so doing, we would not only embarrass the United States into shouldering its responsibilities in relation to UN funding, but we would also demonstrate that our commitment to defending human rights is more than simply empty rhetoric.
I do not think there is a good environmental argument for trying to drive most of the population of the United Kingdom into the bottom south-east corner.
We will respect whatever choice they make and hope that the decision is one that will allow for the peaceful integration of a united Cyprus into our Union on 1 May.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, after the New York Times revelations, investigations are ongoing in the United States into the secret club of nine banks - one of which is European - whose executives meet every Wednesday to agree what action to take on derivatives.

Alternatives:

merged into
combined into
formed into
joined into
consolidated into

united under

This phrase is correct and commonly used when describing a situation where one entity is under the authority or leadership of another.

This phrase is used to indicate that one entity is under the control, influence, or leadership of another entity.