Tony, as I said 'that's fine'. I was simply trying to point out to non native speakers of English, trying to learn it using DL, that some words and phrases are unique to either the British Isles or to the States, to prevent their sounding foreign or unnatural, if used "out of place."
"Coming" and "arriving" are often used as exact synonyms as least in colloquial American English, however, I could say "I was coming from Paris; my jet had a lay-over in Iceland, so I was arriving from Reykjavik." I don't think you could switch the two words in that sentence.
It is just that we have two distinct words in both languages: come/arrive & venire/arrivare. Both words have similar meanings and are often interchangeable, but can also have some specific nuances. If 'arrivare' is used in Italian, then it is best to translate it as 'arrive' in English, even though 'come' would probably fit in most instances.
It largely depends on the intent and nuances of both languages.
If "arrive" and "arrivare" are exact synonyms, you should use the English/Italian word which most closely follow the Italian/English word in spelling and sound (i.e., you're translating the word), even if another word might more accurately reflect what's going on (if you change the word, you're editing as well as translating).
But then, all good, readable translations require good editing as well, if only to avoid repetitiveness: "He's arriving from Paris, but not coming here" reads better, IMO, than "He's coming from Paris, but not coming here." Unless there's a reason for the repetition, which is a question of aesthetics.
I base my judgment on a degree in English literature and decades of reading English-language texts. "Arriving from" connotes coming directly from a place with little interruption in the time it takes to travel; "coming from" allows for any number of intermediate stops with an indeterminate amount of time taken to travel. "Arriving" also focuses on both the beginning and the end of the trip: "arriving (here) from (there)", while "coming from" focuses on the place you left without regard to where you arrive. In my example, you'd be both "coming from" and "arriving from" Paris, but you'd only be "coming from Moscow".
None of this is written in stone. It's just a question of idiom. You'll have more clear communication if you write this way in American English, although you'd likely be understood either way. Also, that idiom might not exist in the UK or India or other English-speaking places.
"to come" should be a valid translation of "arrivare" in this context. See http://context.reverso.net/traduction/italien-anglais/arrivare However Duo does not usually include the formal/polite "you" conjugation in its list of correct answers, so would not normally consider "you" as a correct translation with "arrivava". You could report it, but it is usually just easier to translate the third person singular as just that and avoid the issue. In this case it is hard to say whether it was your "coming" translation or the "you" translation that Duo didn't like.
A long time ago, I flew from Haiti on a jet that had originate in Bogota, Colombia. While in Haiti, I'd picked up a cold, so my nose was all red and dripping, and I was sneezing like crazy. When I got to Miami, I spent a lot more time going through customs than I was used to.
I am confused, I thought this tense was more a pattern of something done in the past.. because frequently I see it translated as "used to" ..s o if that is the case, why is this "arriving from?" why isn't it "from where would she arrive" or "from where would she used to arrive?" or is that a different verb? In English there is a difference between "what airport was he arriving from" (he is late, what airport is he arriving from?) vs. "what airport would she arrive from" (when she used to regularly make trips to New York)
"would arrive" is a subjunctive construction as e.g., "what airport would she arrive from, ...if her flight had been cancelled (which it wasn't or if it were to be cancelled, which it might be). "Where was she arriving from?" is a factual question requiring an indicative tense.
The problem is with English. "Would" has two different meanings - one makes a verb conditional; the other has to do with customary action in the past. If I say, "As a little girl I would sit on my mother's lap," I mean that when I was little I often sat on her lap. If I say, "If I weren't grown up, I would sit on my mother's lap," I mean I don't sit on her lap, although I would like to.
Patricia.101 I understood that this tense is used to say how things were in the past, or talk about events that happened often, or that carried on over a long period of time. In English, we often use words and phrases such as: was, were and used to. But... we don't always use these phrases. Eg. vivevo con due amici - I lived with two friends. But the Imperfect tense must be used in Italian.
Would someone please help me. I am not getting any feedback from Duo. I am on level 16, politics and half way through there is a triple answer question. The green box is partially covered by the answer and wont let me click in. I have tried several times and I am stuck there, SOOOO frustrating I cant move on.
Thanks for your answer. I have tried this also, but a answer partially covers the green check box and wont allow me to click on it. Even the "skip" box on the left wont light up to allow me access. and clicking on "quit" just takes me out altogether. I so hope that the Duo. team can see this and help me to move on,
StephenCoates: I think that if the context involves someone arriving by train, plane, or ship rather than someone coming from the supermarket or theater, then not only is 'arriving' correct, but in my opinion the more appropriate and more accurate verb to use. To emphasize my point, you need only consider the standard terms used at airports around the world: Departures and Arrivals. Departures and Comings? I don't think so!