Translation:He is not going to have breakfast with me.
Yes, I've heard all of those. I wouldn't call them common, but they would certainly be accurate translations.
to eat breakfast: She usually breakfasts alone. They breakfasted hurriedly on coffee and toast (= ate coffee and toast for breakfast).
"to breakfast" would be understood by some, not all, since it's a highly stylized use of English. It's not even colloquial, it's not natural, and you'd be viewed as odd for saying it.
Same to "to lunch".
"to supper" and "to dinner" are never used: "to sup" and "to dine" are the verbs associated with them, but "to dine" is the only one that ever gets used, and then it's a kind of refined English which is not used in common parlance.
"He's not going to breakfast with me" is an even truer sense of the meaning, surely.
Except that "to breakfast" is an unnatural bit of English which is not used, even colloquially. It's not wrong, it's just not good English.
Could this sentence be translated as "He and I will not have breakfast" (both of us)? If not, how do we write such a sentence?
I am not a native speaker, but just someone else studying Russian and I thought the same for a moment. But then I realized that будет would have to change to будут to fit your translation.
That was my translation also. It seems to fit the topic notes, which say that the Instrumental case can be translated as "He and I" are, or are not, doing something, not just that he is/is not doing something with me.
the translation of ne budet is also given as WON"T. so why is my translation : he doesn't want considered as being wrong ? is he won't ( he will not) and (he doesn't want) not the same in english ? it is purely a question of translation. literal or free. or is it not ?
They're similar, but not quite the same.
"He won't have breakfast with me" tells us definitely that he won't, while "he doesn't want to" doesn't necessarily, depending on context - he might have to for some reason, but he won't enjoy it.
"He doesn't want to" also tells us something about his motivation - if he doesn't have breakfast with me, it's because he doesn't want to. "He won't", on the other hand, doesn't say anything about motivation. Maybe he would like to, but he just doesn't have time.
Why not: "He will not be with me for breakfast." ?? Seems to be closer to a literal translation.
It's actually farther. The literal translation is more "he with me will not have breakfast", i.e. basically the suggested answer.
Please help, people who know what they are doing. Would the above be "Он не будет со мной на завтрак."?
"Go have breakfast" isn't the same as "going to have breakfast". "He's not going to have breakfast" just means he's not planning to do it. While your sentence implies we have to go somewhere else, maybe to a restaurant. There's no such implication in the Russian sentence.
I was wondering about thr same thing. If you say "he is not having breakfast with me" would be also correct?
That's present tense, and means "He is not eating breakfast with me right now". "He will not be having breakfast with me" is future tense.
"He will not be having breaking breakfast with me"
Duo has an odd habit of using "going to [verb]", a phrasal future borrowed from Spanish, instead of actual future tense "will [verb]" or "will be having breakfast", since "to breakfast" is strange and unnatural English.
I sometimes think that Spanish was the first Duo module created, and the phrasal future (used freely in Spanish) has wandered into the other language courses. It's not incorrect or even bad English - it's just not the same as actual future tense. "going to" and "will" are not exact synonyms.