This is the sentence:
He’d miss Japan once he'd arrived in/at/to Hawaii.
A native English Speaker told me that it was in. I found that strange, because I always see "arrived at" and "arrived to," but I rarely see "arrived in."
English Language Learners Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for speakers of other languages learning English. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
We arrive in a country, territory, or large city, e.g. arrive in Canada, arrive in California; we arrive at a smaller place or specific location or point, e.g. arrive at the North Pole, arrive at John's house, arrive at the crossroads; we don't use 'to' after 'arrive'.
Warning: We don’t say arrive to a place
Consider these two examples:
He arrived at the building at 9:00am.
This could simply means the person reached the exterior of the building.
He arrived in the building at 9:00am.
This specifically means the person entered the building at that time. The difference can be important.
Generally, we speak of arriving in a country, not "at". You may say that you arrived at the airport, but not the country itself. I can't really explain why, that is just the accepted norm! But it makes sense that you would use "in" if you are actually in the country, not just at the perimeter of it (as you might say about a building in the examples above).
I would say this is also the norm when speaking about named towns and cities etc, although sometimes (British English at least) names of airports and railway stations are abbreviated to just the name of the town or city they serve, and in those instances you may sometimes hear at used, eg the train arrived at Preston at 11:05, although I wouldn't like to say if this is technically correct.
Finally, we never say "arrive to". "To" expresses motion in a particular direction (eg traveling to Japan) and once you have arrived you are no longer traveling so it simply does not make sense.
I agree with user3067860 that, in normal conversation, I would probably say that "I got to" a country, town or specific location, rather than "I arrived in" or "I arrived at". I would probably only use the latter two phrases in a formal conversation or report.
That being said, I would say that "I arrived in" a particular country/city/region/town etc, if the exact location within that area was not particularly relevant. However, if I was referring to a specific location (eg an airport, railway station, hotel, convention centre, supermarket, someone's home, etc), I would say "I arrived at...". In this context, I would also agree that you arrive at the border of a country, state, or county. I would probably say that "I arrived at" a very small town or village, or even a reasonably-sized town if it was not my final destination, but merely a marker on the way to somewhere else.
I would rarely say that "I arrived on" a location, unless it was a very small island, or possibly landing by helicopter on a ship (which I have never done).
While agreeing with J.R. that it is possible to have sentences that contain the phrase "I arrived to..",(and J.R. gave some good examples of such), it is important to emphasise that a native English speaker is not likely to say "I arrived to" a particular country, state, town or place.
With “arrive”, the reached destination is preceded by a preposition indicating location, not direction. Each of at, in or on would potentially be correct—it depends on the nature of the destination which is the correct one to use.
As a test, replace “I arrived” with “I am”. The same preposition is used in either case:
I am at the airport. I arrived at the airport.
I am in Dublin. I arrived in Dublin.
Other languages may work differently here: some use the same preposition for location and direction, others pair their equivalent of “arrive” with a direction. “*Arrive to” is typically used by non-native speakers coming from one of these languages.