Assuming two companies one called A which is the bigger (master), the other call B which is the smaller (child). B is going to join A to be part of A. Which one is the correct phrase here ( B merge into A), or (A merge into B)
closed as unclear what you're asking by RegDwigнt♦ Oct 23 '13 at 8:55
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
A merge with B = B merge with A.
Pour the smaller cup into the bigger cup of coffee = pour the bigger cup into the smaller cup of coffee.
The traffic of the highway merged into that streaming out of the feeder ramp = the traffic streaming out of the feeder ramp merged into the highway traffic.
The product lines of IBM merged into those of the tiny company they bought = the product lines of the tiny company IBM bought merged into those of IBM's.
Normally, we say company A merging with company B, rather than merging into. However, we can say their products, functionality or services merging into each other's.
commutative [kəˈmjuːtətɪv ˈkɒmjʊˌteɪtɪv]
1. relating to or involving substitution
2. (Mathematics) (Philosophy / Logic) Maths Logic
a. (of an operator) giving the same result irrespective of the order of the arguments; thus disjunction and addition are commutative but implication and subtraction are not
b. relating to this property the commutative law of addition
e.g. commutative operation: a + b = b + a
non-commutative operation: a/b != b/a
It seems logical that the smaller company should merge into the larger company. But why would it be illogical to say that the bigger company merging into the smaller company.
However, there might be a public perception tendency to visualise a submissive entity merging into a dominant entity. Rather than a dominant entity merging into a submissive entity, regardless of the equivalence and commutativity in logic.
OTOH, there have been instances of a large company submissively merging into a small company
- As condition of purchasing the smaller company, the board of the large company agrees to retain the executive management, the technology skills or financial expertise of the small company as the dominant team, as acquiring those assets were the reason for the purchase.
- The market reach of the small company was significantly more dominant than that of the larger company.
- The larger company is merely a holding company shell uniting an range of investors with the purpose of acquiring business assets.
- The smaller company had a significantly larger bandwidth or manufacturing capacity, into which the larger company's would have to merge.