"The books arrived TO you" or "The books arrived AT you"?

Question

Which preposition is considered to be natural in the following context?

The books arrived TO you.

or

The books arrived AT you.

My choice was the preposition 'to' in this context, but my corrector is now marking it as an error and suggesting me to replace it with 'at', and I'm not sure about it.

Among other options, I think you can say "The books (have) arrived." (no object) or "The books have been/were delivered to you/your home." — Andrew Tobilko, Mar 29 '21 at 20:58
"For" is one of the few prepositions that would there (assuming you don't change the structure, as suggested in the answers), but we'd need a bit more context to know whether that would make sense for your purposes. It basically means it was addressed to you, and, unlike "at", often very specifically means you haven't actually gotten it yet (e.g. "The books arrived for you while you were out"). — NotThatGuy, Mar 30 '21 at 08:15
Both are unambiguously wrong. "Your books arrived" would be normal . — TonyK, Mar 30 '21 at 18:41
Neither, never. The books arrived "with you" would often be acceptable but not either example.
For you, why is the much more simple "The books arrived…" not sufficient? — Robbie Goodwin, Mar 30 '21 at 21:04
@RobbieGoodwin: "With you" would imply that you went somewhere and brought the books with you, rather than the books getting shipped to your address. — user2357112, Mar 31 '21 at 00:06
@RobbieGoodwin as anyone will have noticed, the question has attracted a lot of attention. Have you wondered why? Well, the OP's sentence looks like a word for word translation of the sentence in their native language. For instance, in Italian we could say "I libri sono arrivati a te." and many an Italian learner would translate the "a te" as *at you* in English. The sentence, which is so simple in one's mother tongue, sounds unnecessarily awkward and "off" in English. — Mari-Lou A, Mar 31 '21 at 05:34
Interestingly, if the verb get had been used, the phrasing would have worked. The books got to you (in time) — Mari-Lou A, Mar 31 '21 at 05:40
“… with you…” does admit the interpretation of going off somewhere and bringing the books with you; it doesn’t imply that… the freedom of English sentence structure has a dangerous downside. It does look like direct translation, which is why I think it important to give a direct translation as well as the colloquial… why the direct one won’t work, is often more widely useful that what the colloquial happens to be. Italian “tiramisu”: literally, “pull me up”; in English, “pick me up. Oddly, the same route gives French “tirez” for “pull (the trigger)” matching English “fire (the weapon)” — Robbie Goodwin, Mar 31 '21 at 13:33

Ben Kovitz · Answer 1 · 2021-03-30T03:52:01.943

37

The verb arrive means to reach a place at the end of a journey. Since it focuses on the end of the motion, not the whole motion from beginning to end, it doesn't work with "to [a destination]" as a modifier, the way you can say "go to your house", "walk to your house", "drive to your house", etc.

And since arrive suggests coming to a stop, the preposition at indicates the place or time where the journey ended. So, arrive at works by analogy with "I'll meet you at the park" (see this answer for more), "I'll meet you at 10:00", "This bus stops at Cuyahoga Street", etc., not by analogy with at for the target of a moving object, as in "Don't throw stones at a window" or "Watch out, the bus is coming right at you!"

When you say at with an object or person, like "a window" or "you", it sounds like you mean the target of motion—like throwing, suggesting a collision. So, you can't say "The books arrived at you." You have to rephrase so that the object of at is more clearly a place, like any of these:

The books arrived at your house.

The books arrived at your address.

The books arrived at your office.

The books arrived at your window. [This sounds natural because "your window" can also be understood as a place. This sentence suggests that the books were placed neatly in front of your window, or were handed to someone who received them through your window.]

The books arrived at your place.

The last one, "your place", is informal.

edited Mar 30 '21 at 03:52

answered Mar 29 '21 at 21:04

Ben Kovitz

27,566
3
53
109

2

Thank you for the answer. Is "the books reached you" might be considered a good alternative? (As Colin Fine noted in his answer) – Virtuous Legend Mar 30 '21 at 13:47
5

To use to, you might go with something like "The books were delivered to you", implying a 3rd party. (Books can't deliver themselves after all.) – Darrel Hoffman Mar 30 '21 at 14:39
10

" So, you can't say 'The books arrived at you'" Well, you could, but you're likely to hear "God bless you" in response – Kevin Mar 30 '21 at 17:42
Since the context of this sentence is missing. I would consider The books arrived at your place. the most naturally sounding application of this verb's intransitive form to have a personal pronoun like "you" or ''your" included. – hc_dev Mar 30 '21 at 18:54
3

The books arrived at yours, meaning "the books arrived at your place" but being much less stilted – minseong Mar 30 '21 at 20:52
3

@theonlygusti: I'm pretty sure the use of "yours" like that is a regional thing. – user2357112 Mar 31 '21 at 00:03
1

There are also a few “at your x” phrases (I’m thinking “at your feet”/“at your door,” maybe others) that commonly have a more metaphorical mood to them. – thehole Mar 31 '21 at 03:26
2

@JudiciousAllure "the books reached you" is fine, though "reach" suggests that there was some unusual effort or delay involved. Example: "After a long day travelling, we finally reached our hotel room." "Reached" is still a normal, slightly informal usage though, and you can use it without sounding odd. – fectin Mar 31 '21 at 13:54
@JudiciousAllure Yes, "The books reached you" is a good alternative. And see fectin's comment for an explanation of the nuance. – Ben Kovitz Apr 04 '21 at 14:16

score 8 · Answer 2 · edited Dec 01 '21 at 07:57

8

Neither.

You cannot arrive at or to a person, only at a location. You can arrive at my house, but not at me. To indicates direction, so you can travel to the station before you arrive at the station.

Colloquially, people say 'when you get to me', but arrive is more formal.

The preposition 'at' can be used for direction in the form 'throw a ball at me' (in my direction, with the intention of hitting me), vs 'throw a ball to me' (in my direction, with the intention of my catching it).

edited Dec 01 '21 at 07:57

Mari-Lou A

27,037
13
72
125

answered Mar 30 '21 at 20:33

Mark Williams

201
1
2

You can arrive at a person if the person was an object, but like other people said, this would mean the books landed on you physically. ;O – oemb1905 Mar 30 '21 at 23:27
The question is about prepositions, but I thought you made an interesting point that the other answers don’t: “got to you” works here, albeit informally. I’d suggest highlighting that more in the answer – thehole Mar 31 '21 at 03:04
Yes, thehole, and that's because "to arrive" and "to go" behave differently, not (in)formality. "… reached you…" is different again. – Robbie Goodwin Mar 31 '21 at 13:36

score 5 · Answer 3 · answered Mar 30 '21 at 18:16

5

I would go with:

Your books arrived.

If you really want something close to your construction, then NotThatGuy's suggestion of "for" does work:

The books arrived for you.

answered Mar 30 '21 at 18:16

Kirk Woll

315
1
6

score 3 · Answer 4 · answered Mar 29 '21 at 20:21

3

Neither. Arrive usually takes a place, not a person as its object.

The most natural expression would be

The books reach you.

If you want to use arrive, you could say

The books arrive with you.

But note that if you do so, with you is not a complement of arrive in the way that at the office or in London would be: arrive is being used intransitively, and with you is an adjunct, that gives optional additional information in the same way as on Tuesday in The books arrive on Tuesday.

answered Mar 29 '21 at 20:21

Colin Fine

75,266
4
98
158

21

+1 for "neither". I disagree about "arrive with you". That suggests that you arrive carrying the books, or that by chance they are delivered just as you arrive. – Ethan Bolker Mar 29 '21 at 20:43
4

@EthanBolker: it could indeed mean that. But as an adjunct, its relationship to the head is vague. I find "I've sent the book and it should arrive with you on Wednesday" clear and unremarkable. – Colin Fine Mar 29 '21 at 21:48
8

@ColinFine To me "it arrives with you" does not mean you are the recipient; it means you arrive simultaneously with it. – Peter Mar 29 '21 at 22:26
3

"The books arrive at your location" is better in keeping the meaning of the sentence the same, if you must use the word "arrive". "The books arrive with you" means you and the books are together (with) and you will both arrive at the same time. – Edwin Buck Mar 30 '21 at 00:33
5

I'm with Ethan - arrive with you is not usual English unless they actually arrive with you, because you are bringing them. We can expand the phrase as "The books are arriving/will arrive with you" - and with in this sentence doesn't normally just mean "at the same time", it means actually with you. Carried by you,in your bags, or similar. But never, ever, is it arrive "to" you. – Stilez Mar 30 '21 at 07:43
3

@EthanBolker and others: while it does seem to be ambiguous and imprecise, the "with you" construction as indicated by Colin Fine is not uncommon. I've seen quite a few occurrences of it in the wild. – Prime Mover Mar 30 '21 at 08:12
1

I agree that "arrive with you" is a bit awkward but not unheard of. Personally I'd be more likely to say "... the books will be with you on Wednesday." – psmears Mar 30 '21 at 11:00
or "You will receive the books on Wednesday" – user253751 Mar 30 '21 at 11:16
"arrive with you" doesn't mean the books arrive where you are though, it means the you and the books have arrive together – Tristan Mar 30 '21 at 15:23
2

For all the people pontificating about "what it means": I beg you to consider whether it might not be possible for a phrase to have more than one meaning. Certainly it can mean that you and the books arrive together. Certainly it is not a common way of saying that the books reach you. But, as @PrimeMover mover confirms, with suitable context, it can mean that. – Colin Fine Mar 30 '21 at 18:32
@ColinFine I'm afraid saying that this phrase could possibly mean something else isn't helpful; your answer states definitively that it is being used to meant sent to. So, how can you justify this answer? Is it region or country-specific? I've not heard of it in the SE US. – FeliniusRex - gone Mar 30 '21 at 19:53
2

Surely I am a native English speaker, and I am far from tone-deaf. The iWeb corpus has 20 instances of "should arrive with you", and by inspection precisely one of these has the meaning people are insisting is the only possible one ("your pets should arrive with you on the same flight and be checked baggage"). The other 19 are all of the form "[the documents/your order] should arrive with you [at/within some time]". Half a dozen of them have wording which suggest they are of British origin: I wonder if this is another BrE/AmE difference. – Colin Fine Mar 30 '21 at 21:03
@ColinFine The fact that some people say something (either informally or carelessly), and other people can figure out what they probably meant, doesn't mean English Language Learners should be taught to say it. – alephzero Mar 31 '21 at 03:59
I think this is OED sense 22b of “with", “at the house of”, and despite the needlessly aggressive comments above it’s a perfectly standard usage, albeit quite formal-sounding to my ear. If you want to use “arrive you”, that’s the preposition you want (but you probably don’t want to if you’re asking the question). – Michael Homer Mar 31 '21 at 07:47
@alephzero As complete beginners, no. For more advanced students though, they should be capable of using more informal sentence construction, and this is a fairly common example. For a similar example, I would expect an advanced student to know the word "yeah" and to use it in informal contexts; or in French, I'd expect their trainers to be "godasses" and not "chaussures" in an informal context. – Graham Mar 31 '21 at 10:32
1

@alephzero, the nineteen examples I found in the iWeb corpus are neither informal nor careless. On the contrary, they are somewhat formal: they have the air of official notifications. – Colin Fine Mar 31 '21 at 12:38
Both of the examples sound completely wrong to a native American English ear. "The books reached you" or "The books arrived at your house" are OK. – user8356 Mar 31 '21 at 14:08
1

Middle-aged British speaker here - another report that "will arrive with you" is standard and unremarkable UK English. A google search for <"will arrive with you" uk> produces pages and pages of examples (I believe that search even works from a US geolocation). It's not particularly informal or careless - most of the examples there are companies telling customers when to expect a delivery. You might also use it to tell a hotel or a host when to expect you ("we will arrive with you around 6pm on Sunday") - useful to discover that this would sound strange to North American ears! – James Martin Mar 31 '21 at 21:46

score 1 · Answer 5 · answered Mar 31 '21 at 16:13

Arrive means reaching a destination place, and at reinforces that to mean a certain 'place'. Another definition of at indicates an implied action, like "He threw the package at you." which can be confusing. It would be ok to say "The book arrived at my house" or just "The book arrived."

To would be slightly better I think because its target can be a person, place, or thing. It also better matches the normal usage as in "I sent a book to you" and "The book was delivered to you." You wouldn't say "I sent a book at you". But again arrive implies a place, not a person.

A better word to use would be 'receive' which is meant for people to have things given to them or presented to them, as in "You received the book."

"The books arrived TO you" or "The books arrived AT you"?

5 Answers5