Correct me if I am wrong: the case being used in Москву is accusative and the reason is because there is an action of movement towards a certain point. My question is: why is the preposition в being used instead of к? I thought in these cases of moving towards a point к was the preposition that should be used.
If as a result of motion you are going to be «в» (in) that place, use «в» when going there and «из» when leaving that place.
If as a result of motion you are going to be «на» (on, at) that place, use «на» when going there and «с» when leaving that place.
If as a result of motion you are going to be «у» (at) some person's place, use «к» when going to visit them «от» when leaving their place.
«К» is also used in the meaning of "towards" (when the direction is relevant but the destination is not).
«На» is used with directions when referring to transportation, too, especially when talking about trains. It has the meaning of roughly classifying directions. For example, if you are standing at a station near Moscow, it is quite important to know whether you are on the right side of the platform. Trains in the direction of Moscow will be at the side labeled «На Москву», wheareas trains moving from Moscow will arrive at the side labeled «От Москвы».
Yeah, and if, as a result of motion, you are going to be behind (за) or under (под) that place (за and под are followed by nouns in the instrumental case when the location is stated), use "за" and "под", respectively when going there (putting the nouns in the accusative case) and "из-за" and "из-под" (putting the nouns in the genitive) when leaving the place. Examples: зашёл за дерево - вышел из-за дерева, залез под стол - вылез из-под стола, заполз под кровать - выполз из-под кровати.
Oh wow that's pretty confusing. I have a question though: what do you mean к is used when the destionation is not relevant? I mean, if you're saying you're going towards some place, you need to mention that place, how does this make it irrelevant? In this course for example, I can recall examples like люди идут к школу or дорога идет к этому дереву.
Use "к" when the finish point of moving should be next to the destination. Not inside something. Here some examples: Он подошёл к дереву. Мы подъехали к дому. Они подплыли к берегу. You should say "люди идут в школу" if they are going to go inside, if they just want to stop next to it: "люди идут к школе".
You mean in English? I don't think so... Yes, in English, we often use "go" as a generic verb for all types of travel (the boat goes to Sicily, the plane goes to Moscow), but it is also absolutely correct to say "the boat sails to Sicily" or "the plane flies to Moscow".
I understand. So, shouldn‘t ‘This airplane goes to Moscow’ be accepted? O_o I wrote that and it was not accepted as a translation. The meaning is the same, right?
No, the meaning is 'is flying/going to Moscow'. Unlike летает, летит means either 'is already on its way' or 'is going to fly in the near future'. In English you use the Present simple to refer to future events only in describing schedules, in which case the Russian uses verbs 'вылетает', 'отправляется', 'отходит'
Oh, OK, I understand. So, ‘The Airplane goes to Moscow’ (on a regular basisI would translate to «Самалёт летает в Москву»? Would it perhaps be «Самалёт былетает в Москву»?
Hm. I think it works still if you mean the destination of the plane rather than the trip itself. In English you do not really say "I go to the office" in the meaning "Bye, I'm going to work"—however, it is legitimate to say "This bus goes to Atlanta" in the meaning of "When it leaves the station, it is going to head to Altanta".
If you mean regular trips instead, this is more limited. Might apply to the speech of professionals but I can hardly imagine it in regular speech with planes (we do not normally associate "plane" with the "flight" close enough to say "this plane" when we really mean the regular route it takes).
Do train routes have codenames/numbers where you live? In Russia they, apparently, do, so now I can imagine saying that such and such train "goes" somewhere (meaning that the train is 450U, and the railroad company has it regularly follow the route you can see in the schedule).
If you want to say, 'flies on a regular basis', then yes, you need летает. 'Самолёт вылетает' is used when the departure time is mentioned or implied, e.g. 'Самолёт вылетает через час' or 'Самолёт вылетает в 8.30' or 'Самолёт вылетает по расписанию'
What would be the russian for the difference between 'to' and 'into'? As в also translates to 'in' could it not also be used as 'into' for this sentence?
The given Russian sentence can be used by someone who is on the plane or boarding the plane, in which case, этот corresponds to "this". It can also be said about a plane mentioned earlier in the conversation, in which case этот translates into "the". Finally, you can imagine someone pointing at an airplane in the sky or out in the airfield and saying the sentence. In that case, "That plane" is the correct translation.
why does этот not mean "that" and how would i say "that plane is flying to Moscow?"
This plane flies to Moscow wasn't accepted. I disagree.
Most often the discussed airplan is standing on the ground, and if everything will be ok, they are announced the boarding, after that we (or someone else) are going to go inside, will sit on chairs, will drive on strips, take off ... and only then will be flying. Not right now!
It is the plane, not the plain. And is not the flight schedule we are discussing here (it would have been «самолёт вылетает в Москву в такое-то время»), but the destination of a particular flight.
My comment expresses doubts about the exclusivity of the continuous tense in the translation of Russian sentence.
I have fixed some typos, thanks
In the case of летит/летает, идёт/ходит, бежит/бегает, плывёт/плавает, едет/ездит, ползёт/ползает etc., the first member of each pair is always translated into English using the Continuous.