"Tú has llegado a la presentación."
Translation:You have arrived at the presentation.
With which verb? I ask because "come to the presentation" is fine but "arrived to the presentation" isn't.
'a' is often used when there is some sort of travel or motion involved, as in this case. They are not commonly interchangeable, and you need to remember which one commonly follows which verbs. "en casa" = at home, and commonly messes people up
I second what rspreng said, but just wanted to add that "llegar a" is a compound form that means "to arrive at"
In 'Verbs: Future Tense', lesson 6, Duolingo translates "Ellas van a llegar a Roma." as "They are going to arrive to Rome." or "They are going to arrive in Rome."
It also marked my answer "They are going to arrive at Rome." as incorrect.
EDIT: Maybe it is only "to arrive at" when immediately followed by a definite article ('el or 'la')?
EDIT2: In the same lesson Duolingo translates "Ellos van a llegar al valle." as "They are going to arrive at the valley.", but rejects "They are going to arrive in the valley."
So that would seem to comfirm my first edit.
Eh, I think that is a Duolingo error. "at Rome" should be correct. Now I also think "to" and especially "in" could work as well in that situation, as well as in this sentence, because they all convey the same general meaning. Although "arrive to Rome" sounds a little off to me. I think it basically comes down to which is more commonly used in English. We say we arrive in the city but at the airport. But generally "llegar a" uses "arrive at" as the base definition in dictionaries etc.
I think they should probably accept "to" in this sentence as well, but they may be trying to break us as students from the idea that "a" always means "to," as there are situations where it doesn't.
In English, it is most common to arrive "in" (but not "at" or "to") a city, state or country, but to arrive "at" (but not "in" or "to" a specific place such as an airport, café, someone's house, etc.). As with nearly every point of grammar in English, there are exceptions. (And you generally go or come "to" a place before you can go or come "in" the same place. If you go or come "at" a person or place it sounds like you are attacking it or them.)
I think DL is wrong there... "arrive to Rome", just sounds weird. "Arrive at Rome" should be a correct answer IMO
You would only say "arrive at Rome" if Rome is the name of the train station (i.e. a specific place). If you have gotten to the city of Rome, that is a large area and you have arrived "in" it.
How would you say "You have arrived to the presentation" in Spanish?
I don't think you would ever say that in English... "arrived to the presentation" makes no sense in any context I can think of.
This is wrong in English, but would be the title sentence in Spanish, see above.
'presentación' can also apparently be translated as 'introduction' so is "the introduction of the presentation" translated as "la presentación de la presentación"?
I wrote Yo'u've arrived instead of You have arrived and it said it was wrong...
I wrote You've arrived instead of You have arrived and it showed as an error.
How are we to know: (i) If he came FOR the presentation (SOMEONE ELSE'S presentation); (ii) (...)TO the presentation (his own?); (iii) REACHED the presentation (PRESENTATION STAGE of his conference); (iv) (...) AT the presentation ( local where the presentation took place)?