has gone for/to (her) aerobics class

Here in Texas, we'd say "Jasmine has gone to her aerobics class."

New Mexico too, but you wouldn't get any strange looks if you deleted the word 'her'.

In Oregon we would also use "to".

Unless you said

"Jamie went to the gym for her aerobics class.

Either "her," or the indefinite article . . . Jasmine has gone to an aerobics class . . .

EDIT: I suppose you could dispense with either one of them . . . Jasmine has gone to aerobics class . . . although, in the American language at least, people are likely to use either "her" or "an" . . .

I would say it your way too. In my neck of the woods though, the "fitness center" is NEVER called a gym!!

The preposition you'd choose depends on the meaning you wish to convey.

Go to a location.

Go for a reason.

So either are correct but the more common collocation would be "go to". I'll try to give context for both situations to show the difference (though you could still exchange the preposition in each):

Where is Jasmine?
She had to go to her class.

Why did Jasmine leave?
She had to go for her class.



No.

Many thanks to all the members who replied to my post.

I was not aware of that distinction. Sounds right, though.

There are many things that you aren't consciously aware of in language, Roger, yet you know these things intuitively.

Which must make it pure torture, and almost an impossibility, for a foreign adult learner to achieve a very high standard.

You now see the problem of having people teaching EFL solely based on the fact that they are native speakers. As The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English says, native speakers are generally not able to give accurate descriptions of how the language works.

Combine this with all the prescriptive nonsense that has been taught for a few centuries and what do you have, a bunch of Setantas. Of course, it isn't limited to Americans, pretty much every English speaking country has been subjected to prescriptivism.

Well, let's see. JTT has now ruled out native speakers of a language as ESL teachers because they don't understand why they say what they do. He's ruled out non-native speakers because they teach prescriptivly. Who does that leave?

I haven't ruled out native speakers, MJ. [Only those with limited reading comprehension skills; MJ, back of the line.]

The point is that native speakers who do not get themselves up to speed on how English actually works should be banned as EFL teachers. The problem with that is, EFL is a business, and language schools are often willing to take anyone, as long as the body is still warm. You could likely get a job, MJ.

Non-native speakers are no different than a large chunk of native speakers. They both teach prescriptively because it's easy to do so. When all one has to do is memorize some simplistic falsehoods and spit them back out, it makes teaching really quite easy. I've seen large numbers of completely incompetent native speakers teaching English.

Take another peek at the Pet Peeves thread.

We would never say 'gone to her aerobics class.' We'd say she's gone down the pub. Who needs aerobics?

I am not a Setanta. There's no way I want to look at Liz's Aunt Mary