You would go 'to' a restaurant, or arrive 'at' a restaurant... but you wouldn't arrive 'to' a restaurant. This might be a correct translation from Portuguese but it isn't grammatically correct in English.
However, "a" means both "at" and "to", so "ir a" and "chegar a" both translate correctly to "go to" and "arrive at," respectively.
why at?! why not to?!
I think the same; I think i´ll report the problem XD
"A" means either "at" or "to" depending on context.
This has been fixed by DL. Now the preferred answer is "They arrive at the restaurant."
Wouldnt this be more correct as "They come to the restaurant" or "They arrive to the restaurant"? I would think "arrive at" would be "Eles chegam no restaurant"
"No" and "ao" in this sentence would mean the same.
Is that because no is a merging of 'em o' and 'ao' is a merging of 'a o' to the?
Attention: the only correct form is "chegar à/ao". I included "na/no" because everybody uses it in day-to-day conversation.
Right, in English you can only arrive "at" or arrive "in"... no "to" ;)
check out "shatto" above. He is correct. We arrive at a place and we go to a place.
Can I use: "get to the restaurant"?
I used "they arrive to the restaurant" which seems much more appropriate than "they arrive at the restaurant"
I said "they get to the restaurant" which is perfectly acceptable in english and means the same thing.