Translation:I eat dinner at a restaurant.
The で particle can mean several things. When it follows a location, it denotes that the location is where the action is happening.
The way に as a particle has been explained to me is that it marks the target of an action. Like in the sentence 学校に行きます (I go to school), the school is the target of the going. So レストランにばんごはんを食べます would mean something like "I eat dinner to a restaurant", which makes no sense.
Totally agree with you @TomPiddock. Some native could correct me, but apparently, Ni is used to express where the action is taking place when you use a "movement" verb. while De is used with non-movement verbs.
So, I go to school -> Go > use Ni I eat at a restaurant -> Eat > Use De
I dont have japanase symbols here but hope it helps.
The motto text for learners of Japanese is "So shall the first be last and the last first."
There's no "I", but it's interesting to see how much the Japanese syntax differs from the English
It doesn't. In Japanese, plurals aren't as important as in English (though -tachi indicates that something is plural). You should use the report button; it has feelings, too.
I suspect OP might have been corrected to "restaurants" because they didn't include an article. The closest correct answer to "I eat dinner at restaurant" would be "I eat dinner at restaurants".
is it correct to switch around to "bangohan wo restoran de tabemasu" ? sorry for romaji
The meaning remains the same but this structure is not usually used and may be considered unnatural.
I was marked wrong for not putting "I eat MY dinner at a restaurant." But there's absolutely nothing in the sentence corresponding to "my" in what's offered as the English translation - come to that, there's nothing to specify that it's in the first person. What this course is bringing home to me as I race through the elementary stages is just how IMPOSSIBLE it is to compile a Japanese course for English-speaking learners on the basis of simple one-to-one- right-or-wrong translation equivalents!
In English? Because "I eat dinner at restaurant" is not a proper English sentence. Either put an article or make restaurants plural.
This might be a stupid question, but I put in "I am eating dinner at the restaurant.", and it counted as incorrect. It's not the "the" part, it's the "I am" part. I don't understand. Can you help me out here, please?
It's the "eating", actually. To use the present continuous, things that are happening in the moment (-ing), you need the て form of the verb, a conjugation you will learn further in the course, +imasu. That would be 食べています.
It's contracting "he has" to "he's." You're probably thinking it's "he is," which you're right makes no sense. "He has dinner at the restaurant" is an acceptable translation, though.
I understand the meaning but when should i use を(wo) or に (ni) or が (ga) or で (de) as connectors in a sentence?
From what I understand, wo represents an object of action. But I still am not for certain on the difference between de and ni. I would think that ni could be used in place of de here...
Then for now we can say that に (ni) and で (de) are for places and wo is for an object of action. Thanks for your help!
Why not "I ate dinner at a restaurant"? What justifies this sentence as present tense?
Several people have already asked that question but I still am wondering why this sentences uses で instead of に... Can someone explain the difference please?
I know this is an old comment, but hopefully this helps someone. "The Japanese particle で (de) is used to indicate the place at which an action or event takes place. It is translated as “at,” “in,” or “on” in English. The particle で comes after the place (noun) and before the action (verb) in the sentence."
"Using the particle に (ni) or へ (e) as “to”: The Japanese particles に (ni) and へ (e) can be used to indicate destination or direction. They are translated as "to" in English."
This is....kind of odd? "I eat dinner at a restaurant." implies that the speaker eats dinner at a restaurant every night, or at least very frequently. Technically it makes sense, but I suppose it's the frugal part of me that makes me think that this sentence is strange.