Translation:We are not going to the park, but to the Chinese restaurant.
'we do not go into the park, but into the chinese restaurant' should be accepted
What's about: We do not go in the park, but in the chinese restaurant. ? It was not accepted.
Sounds wrong to me -- I don't think you can use "in" like that in English (unlike, say, Germany).
"in" is fine with locations but I think it has to be "into" with destinations.
That sentence feels wrong to me, an American English speaker. Yet, both "in" and "into" can, in certain circumstances be used.
For example: "we'll meet in the restaurant." Compare with "Let's go into the restaurant."
And: "I see him. He's going into the park." Versus "I see them. They are playing in the park."
However: "We do not go in the park," can be used if it is implying either 1) the speakers never enter the park (never have, never will) or 2) they are using "go" as a euphamism for using the bathroom facilities. In the first case there would probably be included the word "never" and in the second case there would be a very particular inflection on the word "go."
This is the answer that I was given as the correct one: We aren't going into the park, but to the Chinese restaurant. How can it be 'into' the first time it's used and 'to' the second time? And how on earth would one know this???
It can be "into" for both, or "to" for both. That doesn't exactly make a difference. Maybe the computer mixed the two variants together? It's uncommon, anyway. Maybe we're standing in front of the park entrance and discussing if we're going in or leaving for somehwere else.
Could parkhoz and étteremhez be used in the hungarian sentence too, or is there a problem since a movement (in)to the park/restaurant is implied in the sentence?
If you go to the edge of the park or to the entrance of the restaurant (but do not enter), then your -hoz -hez suffixes can be used. If you go there and already plan to enter the park or the restaurant, then you'll get inside, hence the -ba -be ending.