we returned to (the place) where

No, it is not necessary, although i expect many native speakers might use it.

However, you have a problem with the phrase " . . . Mother was to keep her company." Mother was to keep whom company? As it is written, it seems to refer to a previously unnamed female. Perhaps you could explain what you meant by that.

Thanks, Setanta

After swimming for about half an hour, we returned to where Mother was to keep her company.
(I mean we went to where Mother was to keep the latter (Mother) company. )

After you pointed out to me I agree 'her' seems to refer to another female. In the above sentence in brackets, I use 'latter', but I think the word doesn't fit well in the sentence.

Now I wonder how to reword it so that it is clear that we wanted to keep Mother happy. I need your help in improving the sentence.

Many thanks for your guidance.

Hi Setanta

I look forward to your response to my request.

Well, i don't think most English speakers would refer to someone keeping themselves company--company in this context implies more than one person, so you could keep someone else company, but not yourself. You might say something such as "to where Mother sat by herself," or "to where Mother was waiting alone."

I think the "was" after Mother is causing confusion. You could say, "we returned to Mother to keep her company" or "we returned to the spot under the tree to keep Mother company". Not that it's grammatically wrong, I don't know if it is, just that it reads clumsily.

Hi FreeDuck

I got your point.

I wonder if I retain the sentence, a comma after Mother, will make it clear that we went to keep Mother company. Or is the sentence still clumsy?

Father, Mother, Brother and I went to a beach. When we reached our destination, we found a shady spot under a tree to put our things. Mother read her storybook while Father, Brother and I went to change into our swimming suits. After swimming for about half an hour, we returned to the place where Mother was, to keep her company.

The works just fine.

Many thanks, Setanta, for pointing our the error in the sentence in my first post. Your constructive comment make me think how to get rid of the misunderstanding created by 'her'.

Glad that it is another snail's pace forward in my progress in English.

There is a saying in English to the effect that slow and steady wins the race. There is also the fable of the tortoise and the hare, in which the fabulist intends to teach the same lesson. I think you move at a better pace than a snail, but even a snail's pace is preferable to no progress at all.

Many thanks, Setanta, for your kind words.

I agree that slow progress is better than no progress. With the help of native speakers, including you, I believe that one day I'll be better than a considerable number of non-natives.

I don't think it is in the nature of language or people to look for outside referents that simply don't exist. First comes the proper noun 'mother' and then the pronoun referent, 'her'.

Hi JTT

Could you please elaborate further on your explanation?

Many thanks.

It's really quite simple, Ms Tan. Grammatically and semantically, it's really quite a stretch to suggest that her refers to someone other than mother.