she treated him to a coy smile of invitation"

[GoodTaste]

coy
[kɔɪ]
ADJECTIVE
making a pretence of shyness or modesty that is intended to be alluring (typically used of a woman).
"she treated him to a coy smile of invitation"
Source: Bing Dictionary

I don't understand the function of to here.

Will the meaning be different if with be used instead?

 

[tedmc]

It is common to say you treat someone to a show/movie/dinner (meaning an occasion).

It does not work with with. With works with things like respect/caution/care.

 

[Tarheel]

Say:

Would the meaning be different if "with" was used instead?

 

[5jj]

Would the meaning be different if "with" was used instead?

Some of us prefer 'were'.

 

[Tarheel]

Some of us prefer 'were'.

That seems to be a BrE/AmE difference.

 

[probus]

In AmE, "I'll buy you lunch" and "I'll treat you to lunch" mean the same. Is BrE different?

 

[5jj]

That seems to be a BrE/AmE difference.

That's interesting. I thought the use of the subjunctive was more common in AmE than in BrE.

 

[probus]

That's interesting. I thought the use of the subjunctive was more common in BrE than in AmE.

That is also interesting. In past threads some people have said that the subjunctive has died out in BrE, but I know for certain it survives in AmE.

 

[GoodTaste]

I also don't understand why "typically used of a woman" is used there rather than "typically used about a woman". Do they share the same meaning?

 

[Rover_KE]

In AmE, "I'll buy you lunch" and "I'll treat you to lunch" mean the same. Is BrE different?

No—it's exactly the same here.

 

[Tarheel]

I also don't understand why "typically used of a woman" is used there rather than "typically used about a woman". Do they share the same meaning?

I suppose they would mean the same thing.

 

[tedmc]

I also don't understand why "typically used of a woman" is used there rather than "typically used about a woman". Do they share the same meaning?

I find "on" old-fashioned. You could also say "on a woman".

 

[5jj]

That is also interesting. In past threads some people have said that the subjunctive has died out in BrE, but I know for certain it survives in AmE.

I got my varieties the wrong way round. I have corrected that post now. Sorry.

 

[GoodTaste]

I have problems about the use of to:

NASA is making efforts to land a man on the Mars.
The above is grammatical. But does the following work as well?
NASA is making efforts to land a man to the Mars.

 

[5jj]

I have problems about the use of to:

NASA is making efforts to land a man on the Mars.

Note the deleted article.

But does the following work as well?
NASA is making efforts to land a man to the Mars.

No.

 

[jutfrank]

NASA is making efforts to land a man to the Mars.

The verb land here is not like send, so you can't use a dynamic preposition. Think of it as being like put: Put a glass to the table.

 

[Tarheel]

They have sent several unmanned spaceships to Mars. They have even landed rovers on Mars. Will they ever send manned spacecraft to Mars? And will they land on Mars? Well, life support would be difficult for such a long trip. Maybe they'll figure it out eventually, but it won't happen in my lifetime.

 

[Peedeebee]

Back to the original point about treat, to and with; I think the word treat has two different meanings here. That is why two different prepositions are used.
Treat to lunch means give someone a treat. That is, give a gift.
Treat with (care) means give someone a treatment. You could treat a disease with a medicine. You could treat a fence with a preservative.

 

[Tdol]

That is also interesting. In past threads some people have said that the subjunctive has died out in BrE, but I know for certain it survives in AmE.

The present subjunctive is pretty much dead and buried in BrE, aside a few fossils. The past lives on.

 

[Peedeebee]

Fatal treatment, as it were...