1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Spanish
  4. >
  5. "Ellas van a llegar a Roma."

"Ellas van a llegar a Roma."

Translation:They are going to arrive in Rome.

May 13, 2013



Why in Rome but not at Rome? In is for bigger place?


Weird isn't it? We arrive AT airports, bus stations, restaurants, banks, someone's house, etc. But we arrive IN cities, towns, countries.

It makes sense though if you imagine these places on a map. You could put a pin in the map to show the location of an airport, or a restaurant, or someone's house, so we essentially abstract those locations to a single point, whereas for a country or city, you don't usually do that.


It might also have to do with the fact that when you "arrive" at your target destination by most methods of travel, you're well within the city.


I don't agree. 'They are going to arrive at Rome' seems perfectly OK to me. A Google search for 'arrived at London' gives 35.5 million hits, as against 41.5 million hits for 'arrived in London'. Also, an exact word search on Google for the sentence 'They arrived at Paris' produces over half a million hits.


I did the same search, and wasn't surprised to find that almost every example was not referring to London city. They referred to airports ("London Heathrow", "London Gatwick"), the zoo, etc. All places which it makes sense with "at" as described above.


When I did a Google search for "arrived at London" I got 777,000 hits and "arrived in London" was 8,900,000 hits.

Did you use quotation marks when you searched for the phrases? You must use them or you will get hits which have some of the keys words you're looking for, but not necessarily the exact phrase.

Also, if you look at the "arrived at London" hits you will see that most of them name a specific place like an airport or train station. If they don't, they are just bad grammar...just because you can find millions of hits for something on Google doesn't mean they are correct.

For example "its going to" (without the apostrophe in "it's") is just wrong but there are 183 million hits. (vs. 921,000,000 hits for "it's going to") but that isn't my point. I'm sure I could even find instances where something that is incorrect gets more hits than something correct.


You might have some luck with their/they're/there.


Ken, we like in a truly weird current society wherein it likes to believe Truth can be voted on. Get up a consensus through which the Majority Rules and you just can't go wrong as the majority is aways right! Right?


Another name for democratic (majority) rule is a lynch mob. Oops, I don't think we want to go there! ;)


Duo did not like me to arrive IN Canada though. Perhaps its course contributors use a different method of establishing the appropriate English prepositions of arrival?


@nueby Did you report it?


I was told the right answer was "we are going to arrive to Rome," which is nonsense. I believe this to be marked incorrectly. I'm a native English speaker who teaches technical writing.


"Arrive at Rome" is marked wrong, but apparently "Arrive to Rome" is correct! Whatever.


No. Arrive to Rome, was not accepted. I have lost a heart.


My sentiments exactly.


Yeah i'm "arrive to rome" as a potential answer that's just weird. At least "arrive at rome" sounds correct even if it isn't technically.


Elsewhere "get to" was accepted. Not here. 29 March 2014.


This is an incredibly awkward sentence in English - if someone said 'they are going to arrive in Rome' as a full sentence I would assume they spoke English as a foreign language, even though it's grammatically okay


Everyday prepositions like this are "chocante" for English speakers. In this instance, llegar+a is just a more common expression than "llegar en". But notice how the preposition changes with the verb associated with it: "Ellas estarán EN Roma." Here, "They will be in Rome" is a similar expression, but with the change of the verb (estar), the preposition changes as well (en). Generally, the act of "going" somewhere in Spanish is associated with the preposition "a" (to), whereas "en" is more linked to being a fixed place. Similarly to English, Spanish verb and preposition generally come in pairs, and learning them just comes with exposure.


Trey, that is what I have been saying. The only way to become fluent is through becoming utterly familiar with the new language. And that can only occur through massive exposure. Just like you said.

I saw recently how there was a couple of guys who finished the tree at a level of only 14. And they were both completely proud of their extra low score. One boasted he had achieved his success in only three weeks. Whooee! What a lack of exposure those two fools do have! But short term nemory is a powerful thing. It works great for remembering where one parked the car at the mall, But for a learning a language it is no goid at all. For it's like you say, exposure is the key to the hope chest of becoming fluent.


chocante indeed!!! muchisimas gracias for the great explanation :)


This helped me understand the 'ir a + infinitive' structure better:

ir a + infinitive = to be going to do something (in the near future)


Can you say, "get to Rome"?


I believe that is correct - llegar has been used by DL ( and others) to say "get" to a location....


Yes... "get to" is the only usage that makes sense to my native western american english speaking ear.


"Arrive to Rome"? Who on earth says that?


Pienso que estoy aprendiendo más de inglés que español de parte de Duolingo. Jajaja...


This use of preposition "to" or "at" was bugging me for a while and I finally digged out an old copy of "Cambridge grammar in use". According to the worthies who compiled the book we say "go/come/travel...etc" TO a place or event (does not matter to London or to the party). BUT we say "arrive in London or arrive in Spain" (for towns an countries). For all other places, like buildings or events we say arrive at the party/ at the airport/ at the hotel.


I checked 'llegar' and it said 'get to' I interpreted the sentence as "they are going to get to Rome" and was marked incorrect. Why?


Most of the time the gist of a spanish sentence is easily intuited. We seem to spend most of the time debating semantics of the English translation that would be useful if we were translating documents.


Congrats on your 100 day streak.


All of a sudden when I hit check I am getting this annoying double clink sound and I can't find anyplace to get rid of it. Anyone have any ideas? Thanks


Or give wrong answers. That should get rid of the sound. ;)


That's the default sound for a correct answer. You can disable it in the settings menu.


Can we say "en" Roma, instead of "a"


when do we interpret 'ir' as "to go" and "will". Duo accepted 'They will arrive at Rome', hence, asking.


"a" means "to" so im not happy with this answer! And you can arrive "to" a destination so this sentence should be fixed


"they're going to get to Rome" is in the drop down, but marked wrong!


Arrive to Rome? Why is that not acceptable?


Word "Ellas" sounds like "Ellos".


Why "a" instead of "en"


Spanish is much more consistent than English, it is almost always llegar a. In English we might say "arrive in Rome" or "arrive at a conclusion" or "arrive home", in Spanish there is always the "a": "llegar a Roma", "llegar a una conclusión", "llegar a casa".


I get the comments about in for cities. It especially makes sense if that arrival is by plane because you come down in the city. Train stops are also in the city. If I arrive by car however I would still insist that 'at' works, because the moment you arrive at the outskirts of London you are there but are not necessarily in it. Picky? Maybe. : )

Learn Spanish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.
Get started