to/for/at 5 o'clock

[wuwo1]

Hello,

I'm not sure which preposition I can use in the following context:

I was in a hurry because I had invited guests to/for/at 5 o'clock.

Thanks in advance.

 

[tedmc]

To state the time, the preposition is always 'at'.

You can say: I had invited guests for dinner at 5 o'clock.
I had invited guests to dinner at 5 o'clock.

not a teacher

 

[MikeNewYork]

I disagree with ted in this context. If you use "at" in that sentence, it would suggest that you made the invitation at 5 o'clock. If the invitation was before that time, but the occasion was at 5 o'clock, I would use "for". I invited guests for dinner at 5 o'clock.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Is it OK to say 'I invited guests to dinner starting at 5 o'clock'?

Not a teacher.

 

[wuwo1]

So in other words it's impossible to omit this: 'to/for dinner'? Cause otherwise the meaning is ambigiuous? That's what I thought. What if I hadn't invited them to dinner then what I should put before the "at 5 o'clock" phrase? I just wanted them to drop in.

 

[Matthew Wai]

'I was in a hurry because I had invited guests who would come at 5 o'clock.'
Is it OK?

Not a teacher.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I would change "would come" to "are coming".

 

[tedmc]

You wouldn't tell people the time of invitation instead of the time of the dinner surely.

not a teacher

 

[riquecohen]

You wouldn't tell people the time of invitation instead of the time of the dinner surely.

not a teacher

There are some situations where you might do so. "I was in a hurry because I had invited guests for dinner at 5 o'clock; they said they would be able to come at 7."

 

[Tdol]

Is it OK to say 'I invited guests to dinner starting at 5 o'clock'?

It's not wrong, but it doesn't sound very natural to me.