Q: "footsteps were imprinted in the stone" or "footsteps were imprinted into the stone"?

Both "footsteps were imprinted in the stone" and "footsteps were imprinted into the stone" are grammatically correct, but they convey slightly different nuances:

1. "Footsteps were imprinted in the stone": This phrase suggests that the footsteps left an impression or mark on the surface of the stone, without necessarily indicating the depth or penetration of the imprint. It emphasizes the visible result of the footsteps on the stone's surface.

Example: Over the centuries, the ancient pathway was worn down, and footsteps were imprinted in the stone.

2. "Footsteps were imprinted into the stone": This phrase implies that the footsteps were pressed deeply into the stone, leaving a more substantial and pronounced impression. It suggests that the footsteps penetrated the surface of the stone to some extent.

Example: The heavy boots of the hiker were imprinted into the stone, leaving a lasting mark on the rugged trail.

In most cases, "footsteps were imprinted in the stone" is more commonly used to describe the visible marks left on the surface, while "footsteps were imprinted into the stone" might be used when emphasizing the depth or impact of the footsteps on the stone. The choice between the two depends on the context and the specific emphasis you want to convey.