Two things: it should be 'If you call me', and in English you do not use the present tense for a future eventuality. 'll should be added after I, 'If you call me, I'll come immediately.'
To call never goes with the preposition 'to'. Sorry to burst your bubble. And an eventuality (possible future event) calls for a future contstruction with 'will' or the appended 'll.
When used as shouting (as opposed to phoning), one would use the preposition to.
Possible future event can also happen multiple times, thus fitting into the repetitive rubric, allowing one to use present simple for enemy's events yet to be.
I agree with NaftaliFri1 that "calling to someone" in the sense of shouting for their attention is certainly fine if a little uncommon. And something can call to you in the sense of attracting you ("it calls to me").
While you can use the present for repeated or general actions that may be in the future, I agree that it sounds a little odd here and I'd more likely say "if you call to me I'll come immediately." I suppose if I were making a general statement about my usual behavior (as in, "I come if I'm called") it's alright, though.
Very uncommon and 'calling to' as you state, had different meanings, none of which are applicable here. One needs to learn the proper Hebrew with the proper English, not 'understandable, but not quite right.'
On one hand yes. In the other, the learning here is translation based, you can't reject one that's correct.
And a sentence, especially this long, rarely has a single translation.
I completely agree with you, that in normal English, we would say "If you call me, I'll come immediately." As a matter of fact, that is what I put, and it was marked wrong. The suggested translation is literal, but sounds totally unnatural in English. Both answers should be accepted.
The given translation is not natural English, British or American. "I will come immediately" is what is said. The 'correct' answer is bad English.
It's not necessarily unnatural English, at least not with respect to the use of the present: "If you call [to/for] me I come immediately." The present is often used in such expressions to express general, generic, or gnomic ideas (i.e., states of affairs, maxims, proverbs, and general truths that are generally the case). Similar uses are found in English, Hebrew, (Koine) Greek, and no doubt many other languages as well.
The future is yet another tool that English speakers have in their toolbox, although it'll convey its own subtle nuances and conceptualizations. If they had wanted to make a statement that focused more directly on the future, they certainly could have done so. It's not like English and Hebrew are lacking the resources! That's probably just not the focus of this particular lesson. Those lessons come later (in the future!).
Part of the problem might be that DuoLingo often lacks context. That's something that users just have to be aware of and ready to supplement on their own (e.g., by imagining the more typical, or even atypical, situations in which you'd encounter such expressions).
This time I remembered to use call and typed "If you call me I am coming immediately" and it was still marked wrong because I typed am coming instead of come. I think I was correct and reported it.
The translation "If you call me, I'm coming right away" should be accepted too, נכון?
Doesn't קורא also mean read? I translated the sentence, "If you read, I come immediately." I thought it would be said be someone who loved being read to! (Duo marked me wrong)
I translated the same way. I used read instead of call and it was marked wrong. Of course, I only remembered the word "read" and not the word "call" could be used for the word קורא; so I consider this a learning experience as to another use of the word.