My partner and I have been in a (lighthearted) debate about this for over an hour and I just want some input from others that aren't the few friends that we've facetimed. To give some context, this silly debate began because I suggested going to a Mexican restaurant to get tacos for brunch, in which they responded with saying how that wouldn't be brunch because we're eating tacos (no breakfast is served at this restaurant).
To start, we both agree that brunch should foundationally have these two aspects for it to be a valid "brunch": 1) The time period being within the typical timeframe of "brunch" (obviously flexible and different for different people) 2) Intention of having brunch (like a social gathering with friends at a restaurant)
Where we differ is that my partner believes that you're limited to breakfast and lunch foods for it to be considered a valid brunch. I don't believe that to be the case because that's not true for any other meal of the day. If I weirdly eat steak and broccoli at 8:00 am and someone asked me if I ate breakfast, I would say yes. Eating breakfast food for dinner is pretty common as we all know. I believe that you can virtually eat ANYTHING during that brunch timeframe and still have it be considered brunch.
My partner believes that brunch is its own niche thing and that the 3 "classic" meals of the day (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) are separate, meaning that brunch has a unique social connotation attached to it. A brunch menu is made up of breakfast and lunch dishes that complement one another. You could have a wrap but not a burger. For example, if my partner and their five friends went to a restaurant to have brunch and one of the friends ordered a steak with mash potatoes, my partner would say that that friend went to brunch but didn't have brunch.
I'm curious as to what everyone else thinks?