go backpacking in Europe / to Europe

I know "I'm planning to go backpacking in Europe this summer" is right.

But I wonder how wrong "I'm planning to go backpacking to Europe this summer" is.

What does the latter remind you of and what's the factor that makes you feel the expression is not right or wrong.

Thanks~!

Why is that wrong?

I'd prefer "backpacking in Europe".
Don't know why, it just sounds better.

Assuming that you are over the ocean somewhere before you start out - you are not likely be be backpackinging your way over here to Europe are you? At least not unless you intend to wear your backpack in the plane (or boat?) and trail back and forth along the aisle (or deck?) which, in the case of the plane especially, would definitely meet with fierce resistance by the airline authorities.

Presumably you will start your backpacking once you arrive here - IN Europe.

I hope you enjou your backpacking in Europe - there is plenty for you to see and do, Don't always rely on the belief that everyone here will understand, or speak, English though - most Euro Continental people have a knowledge of our Language but there are exceptions, especially among older people - make sure you stuff some phrase books into your backpack before you set out.

Of course, you could also go backpacking ACROSS Europe......

It's usually "backpacking across" Europe, but "in" would work as well. You don't backpack "to" Europe, because the backpacking doesn't start until you get there, and "to" implies the journey to get there in teyh first place, not what happens once you're there.

There are some bad responses here, so let me clear this up.

In order to use "to," your starting point would have to be outside of Europe. If you're in the Americas, this would be an extremely illogical statement. So, "how wrong" this usage is would depend on the current location of the speaker, or where he would be at a given time.

Backpacking "in" Europe is too vague, and would be generally confusing. Are you visiting one country or two? All?

Backpacking "across" Europe let's the listener know you'll be visiting a number of European countries and is therefore the most correct thing to say. If in doubt, use across.

Right.......let's assume that our friend Mr X lives in the middle of the United States somewhere and has a sudden urge to see as much of Europe as he can on a limited budget...well, there is, after all, a global credit crunch on right now and there is no denying that Europe is quite an expensive place for the most part.

So he packs his backpack, heads for his nearest Transatlantic airport and heads east towards the Continent of Europe. For argument's sake he lands in Paris - a great city to visit and a suitable location from which to start out on a pan European trek.

With his wallet stuffed full of € he sees as much of Paris as he can before he really gets down to business and sets out on his backpacking tour across Europe, or as much of it as his gradually diminishing € will allow.

Paris > Brussels > Amsterdam > Hamburg > Berlin > Copenhagen > Oslo > Stockholm > Helsinki > Tallinn > Warsaw > Prague > Budapest > Bucharest > Athens > Belgrade > Rome > Monte Carlo > Marseille > Madrid > Lisbon > Toulouse and back to Paris.

If he has sufficient € left he can then take the Eurostar train through the Chunnel to London - change his € to £ - enjoy the myriad pleasures of London and then backpack across the green and pleasant land that is the United Kingdom (I do hope he has remembered to include a folding umbrella and adequate waterproofs and stout wellies in his bulging backpack) - making sure he stops off at Stratford-upon-Avon > York > Durham > Newcastle > Edinburgh > Aberdeen > Inverness > John o'Groats > Fort William > Oban > Glasgow > Chester > Snowdonia > Cardiff > Bristol > Exeter > Land's End > Plymouth > Salisbury > Winchester and back to London again, where he can use up any unspent £ on a riotous night out among all the delights wicked Soho has to offer, before heading out to Heathrow for a flight back to where he came from in the first place, full of happy memories of his backpacking jaunt across Europe.

It's quite possible to go backpacking to Europe if you start outside Europe then go backpacking to Europe. It's an blindingly obvious point obviously, but the statement isn't necessarily illogical.

Back to London or Back in London?
Get in the Car or Get into the car!?

Can IN be used with verbs or movement in English?
Why do you say, arrive at the station but arrive in London?
Is arrive a verb of movement?

I myself would say "I'm planning to go backpacking over in Europe this summer", as "over in" emphasizes the distance in space between the speaker and where the backpacking will be taking place, without having the implications of backpacking all the way there implied by "to". However, though, forms like "over in" really are not used in standard varieties of English, so I would not suggest that you use them, even though they are quite convenient from my own standpoint.

@Milton:

Going "back to London" means a person is returning to the city after leaving, it can also mean the person is already there if 'went' is used instead of 'going'.

"Back in London" either means a person has already returned or that a person lives there. And example would be if you lived in London and went to visit a friend in Sussex. If your friend asked "where's Stacy?" you could reply "she's back in London," which means she never left to come with you.

Regarding your 'in' vs, 'at' question, you arrive in a place, but arrive at a building. However, once inside a building you're in it. Arrive is a verb meaning that one has reached their destination in travel, but it can also refer to a metaphorical travel to success.

"Back to London" implies the actual act of returning there.

"Back in London" implies that you are actually there already.

"Get in the car!" is much more likely to be used than "get into the car!", although they mean more or less the same thing.

You travel by Eurostar train from Paris and arrive AT the station IN London (St Pancras now, and not Waterloo, as from a few months ago)

Another example:

Trains from Edinburgh Waverley station arrive AT King's Cross station, which is also IN London. "Arrive" - an intransitive verb requiring the preposition "at" rather than "in" which in turn detemines London as its location.

"an intransitive verb requiring the preposition "at" rather than "in" which in turn detemines London as its location."

I don't know anyone who would say "now arriving AT London," and anyone who does is mistaken.

An excellent at/in/on usage list can be found at http://esl.about.com/library/grammar/blgr_prep1.htm

But you WOULD say "arriving at Heathrow" or "arriving at Gatwick". Works for airports, but not cities. (Weird, but true!)