ネイティブの耳にはどう聞こえますか　その８

Hi, Lasalle-san, here're my questinons.

We drink coffee at breakfast.
We drink coffee for breakfast.

1)What do you think is the difference between these two sentences?

While "I had meat for dinner" does'nt connoate that the person had only
meat for dinner ("meat" as opposed to fish; etc.;), "I had coffee for breakfast"
seems to really imply that the person had ONLY coffee.
2)Do you agree?

3) Does the following conversation sound natural to you?
A: When do you drink coffee in your country?
B: We drink coffee for breakfast.

4) Would you say "We drink coffee AT breakfast" too in the above conversation?

1-
"for" can imply that that's all you have but I think that if someone
really wanted to convey the idea that they "only have coffee", they would
say something like:
I "just/only" have a cup of coffee for breakfast.
so if someone said "I have coffee for breakfast", I would be confused and probably
think that coffee was their usual drink at breakfast, not that that's all they had.
Then again, it all depends on the context.
If you don't specify I think most people would understand the two sentences as having pretty much the same meaning.


2-I partially agree / disagree.
(I'm a lawyer by training...)

3-I think it sounds OK.
I do agree that grammatically, "at" would sound more appropriate but usage has decided otherwise.
The question and answer can imply that coffee is "the drink" you have for breakfast.

4-
Yes I would.

Interesting question...