Huh, odd. Here I see "He left for Germany" which sounds correct, but the "Correct solution" that came up for me was "He left to Germany" which doesn't sound right. I don't think "left to [place]" is a standard construction in English. If "to" comes after "left" like that it's usually as part of an infinitive: "He left to slice some cucumbers" or something.
For me (a retired American ESL & foreign language teacher), "left to Germany" is just plain wrong, "left for Germany" is the correct version, and should be accepted. I suspect this is also true of standard British English, from some British web comments I read. The online Oxford Learner's Dictionary, also only had a destination example with "for. " It seems to me that although English general verbs of motion (go, fly, travel) all can be used with "to" + the destination, verbs semantically similar to leave (part, abandon, quit) follow the pattern "leave (A) for B," and "to" may not be substituted. Interestingly, A & B could refer to people or affiliations. The expression "leave to" applies only to other meanings, eg to bequeathe, or phrases such as "leave it" ... "to me" / "to your imagination," or "leave one to one's own devices."
There's a difference between "He left for Germany" and "He went to Germany." Both are accepted, but I'm not clear which is meant by the Russian sentence. The first translation just states that he departed in the direction of Germany. He may never have arrived. The second states that he left here and arrived there. My guess is that "He went to Germany" is closer. To be periphrastic, am I right that the sense is "He left here and went to Germany"? The erroneous version "He left to Germany" may be an attempt to encapsulate all this meaning in one verb phrase, but it's not English.
I really need someone to clarify it for me. I read that when you add prefixes to motion verbs, if you add it to a multi directional verb (indefinite) like ездить its imperfective and thus can be used in the present, while the uni directional verb (definite) like ехать it becomes perfective - which you can't use for the present, only past and future. So why doesn't this sentence, он уехал в германю, means that he will leave to Germany in the future? Ехал is definite and adding the prefix у should make it a perfective verb. Thanks.
What do you mean? "Уехать" indeed becomes perfective, and it means "to leave" (by any means of transportation, usually wheeled). So, "он уехал в Германию"="he (has) left for Germany" while "он уедет в Германию"="he will for Germany". And, as you have correctly pointed out, there is no Present Tense. So, what exactly confuses you?
It is a prefix to show aspect of the verb. In this case, it indicates that we're not talking about continuous motion in progress, but we're talking about the start of the action. That's why it gets translated with "departed" or "set off" or "left" - it's as if we're saying "He began the action of going to Germany."