1) When he reaches to manhood, he will visit England. OR 2) When he reaches manhood, he will visit England.
Which of the two is correct?
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
This is yet another "preposition usage" context where usage has changed over time. NGrams doesn't have enough written instances of unquestionably abstract "states that can be reached" (such as manhood, maturity) to show on a chart, but I think heaven is close enough, if we think of it as a "state of being" rather than a "physical location" that can be traveled to...
As that chart clearly shows, a couple of centuries ago you were as likely to reach to heaven as to reach heaven. I know some people will say those two usage mean different things (with to, it's strive to get there - maybe unsuccessfully; without, it's successfully get there). But I don't think that's the whole explanation, and there are plenty of (mostly, older) written instances of reach(ed) to maturity in Google Books to show that including the preposition is/was far from unknown.
I'd say the general trend has been for English to use more prepositions in contexts where they help disambiguate between possible intended meanings, but to discard prepositions where disambiguation is irrelevant. In the context of to reach, the two possible meanings (strive towards, or actually arrive) can be 100% disambiguated by including for or not...
1: People like him will never reach the stars (He'll never get there)
2: People like him will never reach for the stars (He'll never even try to get there)
3: People like him will never reach to the stars (Uncommon today, but could carry either sense)
...so we don't need to bother with to.
TL;DR: It used to be more common to include the preposition for contexts like OP's example, but times have changed. I wouldn't say including to is "ungrammatical", but it's an optional usage that's fallen out of fashion.