3

My aunt is coming to dinner tomorrow.

The meaning is clear. However, if you think about it, what this seems to literally say is that the aunt is going directly to some dinner (and not even an article is used there).

How would you explain such grammar?

I posted this question before on ELL StackExchange. However, I did not receive an answer that would prove the grammar aspects of this.

The user Laure there told me that what is happening here is that some phrases, words, articles are simply omitted.

However, I did not receive a proof of this and I would like to have you confirm this (if this is true, of course). Just to make sure. The user seemed to be the only one claiming this. If I see more people agreeing with it, I'll be more confident this is true.

Edit: After some discussions, I've now decided that the explicit question I should ask here is:

Why is there no article,'the' nor possessive pronoun/noun before the singular noun 'dinner'?

Isn't there a grammar rule that tells us that singular nouns always have at least one of those?

A popular example of such usage would be the phrase 'Go to bed.'

Community
  • 1
user26486
  • 286
  • 1
    @matth: If you can go to school, to work, and to war, why can't you go to dinner? – Peter Shor Sep 11 '14 at 20:51
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Andrew Leach Sep 11 '14 at 21:00
  • @PeterShor As you can see in my edited version (should've seen it before), the question is now why I can write it just the way you did. No indefinite, definite articles nor possessive pronouns/nouns are used. The question is - when can they be omitted, and when is it necessary to have at least one of those near a noun? – user26486 Sep 11 '14 at 21:16
  • 2
    If you consider in hospital and at university, you realize that the list of nouns you can do this for is somewhat arbitrary and differs between American and British English. – Peter Shor Sep 11 '14 at 21:20
  • @Andrew, I wish you had at least kept the three first comments, as those summarized the longer discussion well, and would have kept the question history intact. And MatHH, as I said in an earlier (now archived) comment, no, there is no "grammar rule" which requires "a possessive, an article, a pronoun" before a noun, nor do I understand why you've selected that particular set of auxiliaries as "necessary" (except that perhaps we've shown you other ways to word this particular sentence using those, as examples?). Anyway: "Roses are red. Violets are blue". No articles, possessives, anything. – Dan Bron Sep 11 '14 at 21:31
  • @PeterShor I hope you're right, since then everything is finally clear. Do you have any references, any grammar websites, books or anything that shows this too? I kind of doubt, but asking anyway. – user26486 Sep 11 '14 at 21:40
  • 1
    When people in the U.K. are sick, they go to hospital, but people in the U.S. go to the hospital. Jews usually go to temple or to synagogue to worship, but these expressions often strike Gentiles as strange. And people in the U.S. go to college but to the university, while people in the U.K. go to university. However, you'd go to the temple, the college, or the hospital if you weren't going there to worship, study, or be cured. These are the only cultural/trans-Atlantic differences I know of, but I think these are enough to show that these expressions are somewhat arbitrary. – Peter Shor Sep 11 '14 at 21:45
  • @PeterShor I am surprised how precisely you know the exact ways the Jews, U.K., U.S. use the preposition 'to'. I'm really wondering, how do you know all this? Have you multiple times heard all those mentioned nations say those precise phrases? Or is there some grammar source telling you this? – user26486 Sep 11 '14 at 21:49
  • 1
    I know "to temple" from having heard it. See this question for the U.K. use of "to hospital" (but if you're an American, you'll notice "to hospital" and "to university" if you read British books). – Peter Shor Sep 11 '14 at 21:57
  • 1
    I'll repeat because my one and only comment has been deleted... grrr. "My aunt is coming to [our house for] dinner tomorrow" OR "My aunt is coming to [our home] [in order to have] dinner tomorrow" – Mari-Lou A Sep 11 '14 at 22:01
  • @PeterShor You've completely convinced me. Since your answer is not in the form of an answer but in the comments instead, I'll leave this question without an accepted answer, unless you're willing to post one here. – user26486 Sep 11 '14 at 22:10
  • @PeterShor Are those who find the construction "go to temple" to be strange the same ones who, the following day, go to church? – phoog Sep 11 '14 at 22:18
  • "Isn't there a grammar rule that tells us that singular nouns always have at least one of those?" It would be the first I've heard of such a rule. Do you have a source for this? – phoog Sep 11 '14 at 22:21
  • @phoog I don't. I could say it was an ignorant guess. – user26486 Sep 11 '14 at 22:27
  • @mathh My wife is a native speaker of a language that has no articles, and has truly excellent English because of studying its linguistics and literature in university, as well as working in English-language environments for the last 25 years or so. Still, she is continually plagued by difficulties in knowing when to use or refrain from using articles. It's intensely complicated and I, as a native speaker, have extreme difficulty proposing rules. As soon as I do, she identifies a case where the rule fails to hold. I would be very curious to know how ESL courses handle the problem. – phoog Sep 11 '14 at 22:48
  • Here's a good rule of thumb: If it's an ongoing regular event, it doesn't need an article (school, work, temple, church, dinner). (The noun describes or implies the event, even though it's a destination.) Once an article is employed, it describes either a one-off of these events or places or the (only or major) of these events or places. This is why US says "to the hospital." It's a unique occasion. (But why to the University?) Because it's a major place. – SrJoven Sep 16 '14 at 11:57

4 Answers4

2

We often use singular nouns to represent the entire class of object they describe, rather than an individual instance of the noun. When we do so, the noun often does not take an article

  • I love cilantro.
  • She travels by car.
  • Breakfast is the most important meal of the day.
  • What time do you go to work?
  • I use soap to wash my hair.

This is not universal.

  • I am on the job.
  • When driving, grab the steering wheel.
  • She went to the hospital. [Although in British English, it is to hospital]

In your example, coming to dinner means the generic dinner rather than a particular dinner

When is she coming to dinner?

but

Is she coming to the dinner to honor the chairman?

In the latter example, dinner is not the generic concept, but is a particular dinner. This is somewhat complex because the generic usage, without an article, can exist even when you are talking about a particular instance

Don't put garlic in that salad!

Can I meet you for lunch tomorrow?

There is a subtle difference between these two sentences

Are you going to dinner?

Are you going to the dinner?

The first means are you going to eat during the dinnertime meal. The latter are you going to a particular dinner event.

James Waldby - jwpat7
  • 66,660
bib
  • 72,782
  • Agreed with all this, and +1 for the variety of examples. The only thing I quibble with is the assertion that "dinner", unadorned, means a generic dinner. In the OP's case, and regular practice, "dinner", alone, means the specific dinner which is happening today (and, between two speakers, the one they plan to have together). – Dan Bron Sep 11 '14 at 22:29
  • As for the first examples: 'cilantro', 'work', 'soap' are mass nouns and 'breakfast' is almost always a mass noun as well, thus those examples are not very great. – user26486 Sep 11 '14 at 22:34
  • @Mathh, no, "work" is not a mass noun in "going to work" (it would be in "I've got a lot of work to do"). – Dan Bron Sep 11 '14 at 22:36
  • @DanBron Would you say, 'I'm going to works.'? Oxford Dictionaries claim it is a mass noun. – user26486 Sep 11 '14 at 22:38
  • Your remark 'She went to the hospital. [Although in British English, it is to hospital]' further proves Peter Shor's argument that this depends entirely on the language used, probably on specific nouns being talked about also, while somewhat depending on the conditions in which the prepositional phrase is being used in. As Peter said, 'you'd go to the temple, the college, or the hospital if you weren't going there to worship, study, or be cured.' – user26486 Sep 11 '14 at 22:42
  • @Mathh, please try to pay closer attention to my comments. I didn't say "Work is not a mass noun" (to the contrary, I specifically gave an example of where it operates as a mass noun). I said "Work is not a mass noun in going to work". You can't say "going to works", but neither can you say "Going to a lot of work". The dictionary won't have the answers you seek; you need a grammar (and that last word is being used in a way you probably aren't expecting, either). – Dan Bron Sep 11 '14 at 22:48
  • @DanBron If a noun in the same meaning can be used in both singular and plural forms, then the noun denoting the meaning is not a mass noun. Otherwise, it is a mass noun. In our case, we can't say 'They are going to works.' in any sense. Thus, by the rules this comment has shown, the word 'work' in this meaning is a mass noun. – user26486 Sep 11 '14 at 22:54
  • @matt, Repeating arguments without taking other people's responses into account quickly leads in circles. Thus, to repeat my answer to your repeated argument: mass nouns can always be qualified by such terms as "a lot" or "a little"; just as it is impossible to say "going to works", it is impossible to say "going to a lot of work". In the phrase "going to work", work is not a mass noun. Care to repeat your same argument a third time? (BTW, do you enjoy the works of Shakespeare?) – Dan Bron Sep 11 '14 at 22:57
  • In response to @Peter Shor, you could go to church or go to the church. The former is a generic usage meaning heading toward worship, the latter visiting a particular building. – bib Sep 11 '14 at 23:06
  • @bib That is what Peter implies. – user26486 Sep 11 '14 at 23:07
  • @bib, if I asked you "are you going to church on Sunday" (or "school tomorrow [mathh, see now why these words are not operating as mass nouns?]), I would mean a very specific church (or school): the building in which you and worship every week. It's (a) specific and (b) concrete (service, not worship). – Dan Bron Sep 11 '14 at 23:12
  • @DanBron You're actually right. And the Oxford Dictionary actually agrees that 'a work' as in 'a job' in the West Indian language is indeed a countable noun. However, it seems to be the case that British and American English people only use 'a work' in the case of 'going to work' and similar ones, where the article is not used; where it is, they don't use it. Unless you find 'having a work' as in 'having a job' a logically sounding phrase (i.e., sounds alright). I don't though. As for the Shakespeare, the 'works' there have a different meaning from 'jobs'. – user26486 Sep 11 '14 at 23:14
  • @Mathh, "I'm going to work" doesn't mean "I'm going to job", either. Just as "I'm going to school" doesn't mean "I'm going to education", and "I'm going to church" doesn't mean "I'm going to the disciples of an organized religion". Forget it; there is no mass noun at play here. Move on. – Dan Bron Sep 11 '14 at 23:19
  • @DanBron As Peter seemingly implies (as I understand it), whether the articles are omitted or not depends on: 1) the noun. 2) the conditions or states. 3) the language. In the case of "I'm going to work" and "I'm going to job", the 2 stays the same; however, the nouns change, making, in this particular case, the article appear in 'job' (this is my guess). – user26486 Sep 11 '14 at 23:23
  • @MatHh, Peter's comments are helpful, but not comprehensive. If he posts an answer, we can continue our discussion there. As it stands now, however, these comments (barring my first and bib's subsequent response) are no longer relevant to this answer. – Dan Bron Sep 11 '14 at 23:26
  • @DanBron Do you go to church on Sunday? I may have no idea about your particular place of worship or even if you routinely rotate among several. – bib Sep 12 '14 at 02:06
1

I'm not a native English speaker, so I don't really know about the grammar rule behind this. However, by saying "to the dinner", it feels like the aunt will go to a specific, previously mentioned dinner. It also focuses the attention on the "setting", rather than on the action of dining. Take "My aunt went to dinner with Mary" vs "My aunt went to the dinner with Mary". In the first example, all we care about is that my aunt was meeting Mary for dinner, while in the second example the dinner is much more important. Our attention is not focused anymore on Mary's company, but on the fact that there's something special about this dinner. We're suddenly wondering where this dinner will be, who will attend, and so forth. By omitting "the", I guess we're just saying that there's really nothing special about the dinner itself.

As for omitting my, I believe the reason is simply the verb you chose: "coming". Once again "My aunt went to dinner with Mary" vs "My aunt came to dinner with Mary". In the first example, they are eating out together. In the second, they are coming at my place to have dinner, since "coming" expresses motion towards the speaker. The verb is already telling us that we will be at my place while having dinner, so it's my dinner.

vi3x
  • 482
  • The "my" doesn't imply "at my house"; it could equally be out. Consider: You, I, and Matt are at dinner at a fancy restaurant. Auntie Jill is late. Matt asks you: "Didn't you say Aunt Jill is coming to dinner? Where is she?". Dinner, unqualified, does mean "the dinner we are going to have tonight", but it doesn't say where: only that it is ours, and tonight. It is also possibly to qualify dinner so that it is not ours, or not tonight, or both. – Dan Bron Sep 11 '14 at 21:39
0

The confusion can arise because dinner can mean either the actual meal that is to be eaten or the event at which the food is eaten. See Cambridge Online

So with a slight rewording:

My aunt is coming to my dinner meal tomorrow.

or

My aunt is coming to attend my dinner meal tomorrow.

or

My aunt is coming to eat my dinner meal with me tomorrow.

Based on your Edit, we have an ellipsis in which a word or words (probably attend my or attend our) are deliberately omitted from the sentence, but assumed to be there. The danger of using an ellipsis is that the listener or reader may incorrectly guess your true intent.

Gary's Student
  • 6,747
  • This doesn't address the exact misunderstanding I have with this. – user26486 Sep 11 '14 at 21:18
  • @mathh please see m edit based on your edit. – Gary's Student Sep 11 '14 at 21:43
  • Gary, what word or words are elided in coming to dinner (or going to bed, leaving school, whatever)? – Dan Bron Sep 11 '14 at 21:56
  • @DanBron The very fact that you are asking this question just re-affirms my belief that,in general, ellipsis' are just not good. If it is not obvious which words have been culled, they should not be omitted! – Gary's Student Sep 11 '14 at 22:15
  • 1
    @Gary, my not-so-subtle implication was there is no ellipsis at play here. That's a false premise baked into OP's question. There's nothing abbreviated or elided or omitted about "coming to dinner"; it is complete as-is. I had a lot of back-and-forth with the OP about this, but it was archived in Chat. Anyway, the long and short is: the OP wants there to be something wrong with "coming to dinner", but there isn't. – Dan Bron Sep 11 '14 at 22:18
  • @DanBron You may be correct! Is there an independent resource to resolve this? It looks like an ellipsis to me. – Gary's Student Sep 11 '14 at 22:29
  • @Gary, see bib's answer and his extended examples. If you think this is ellipsis, there are a lot of gaps to fill. – Dan Bron Sep 11 '14 at 22:34
  • @DanBron I noticed there is still an issue of where its a generic dinner or a specific dinner. If I hear someone say My aunt is coming to dinner. I assume the speaker is hosting the dinner. If the sentence is not an ellipsis, it is still in dire need of a few extra words to clarify the meaning. – Gary's Student Sep 11 '14 at 22:43
  • @Gary, in your first sentence, you say that when you hear "coming to dinner", you know what it means. In your second, you say it needs clarification. I agree with your first sentence :) (and re: generic dinner, I quibbled with bib on that point.) – Dan Bron Sep 11 '14 at 22:53
  • @DanBron If I first wrote: My aunt is coming to eat dinner. and then I removed the word eat, I would call it an ellipsis. You would not. – Gary's Student Sep 11 '14 at 23:08
  • @Gary What if you wrote "enjoy", "cook", "ruin", "our", "Bob's"? It's not an ellipsis specifically because it wasn't shortened from anything. "Coming to dinner" is unabbreviated; complete. – Dan Bron Sep 11 '14 at 23:15
  • 1
    @DanBron You may be right.....I'll give it some thought...I'll remove the ellipsis reference. – Gary's Student Sep 11 '14 at 23:54
0

For the original question's statement:

My aunt is coming to dinner tomorrow.

Why not an article?

My aunt is coming to the dinner tomorrow.
Which dinner? Oh, you mean that big well-known thing.

My aunt is coming to a dinner tomorrow.
Oh? Is this something you're hosting?

My aunt is coming to dinner tomorrow.
What time will she be at your house?

If you're going to say a dinner, it's a big deal. If you say the dinner, it's a known deal. If you say dinner, it's a big meal (at your home, usually).

SrJoven
  • 4,100