Originally Posted by
Mocucha
Google translator say me the both versions are good, with and without the "to". Isn't it the "to" for a place more than for someone ?
to can be used for multiple meanings. You can use it to describe a place (let's go
to the mall), or as an introduction of sorts.
In this case, not having the to is sort of correct, since it still does make sense. Gramatically though it doesn't work the same way. 'Let me introduce you to the world champion' has far better grammar because you're using
to in order to link the first part of your sentence (Let me introduce you) to the second part of your sentence (the world champion).
There are a lot of ways that to can be used in English and it's mostly just practice and learning to recognize these situations that leads you to have better grammar.
I wouldn't recommend using Google translate to do complex sentences because it just translates the sentence world for world without regard for grammar. It's better used if you translate single words or possibly some expressions. Expressions mostly just to get a basic understanding of what it's saying, it will very rarely give you the grammatically correct version of a sentence.
You'd be much better off getting someone to translate it for you directly or having someone proof-read it after using google translate to check grammar.