- I think, serving only “in-restaurant” food is a great idea.
- My restaurant would only be offering foods in the restaurant.
Are these two sentences grammatically correct? Is "in-restaurant" a valid phrasal verb?
Are these two sentences grammatically correct?
Both your sentences are fine, except the comma after "I think" should not be used. It makes it seem like you are starting a new sentence and leaving "I think" dangling as a sentence on its own.
Is "in-restaurant" a valid phrasal verb
A phrasal verb is a verb like write up - a verb with 2 (sometimes 3) words, and the second (and third if present) word are otherwise normally a preposition but function as adverbs in these case (a term used to describe these extra words is also "particles"). "In-restaurant" is an adjective modifying food.
In-restaurant is a valid way to express what you are trying to say. By including the quotes you are acknowledging that you are "building" inventing a term from parts not normally combined. This is the correct thing to do.
Dine-in is a term I've seen on a lot of receipts, in places in the US I've lived, from restaurants to say you did not order your food "to go" or "take-out". You could say "We should take dine-in orders only."
I've never heard @user3169's "eat-in" myself but it's possible that in other areas of the U.S. or other English speaking areas this term is common.
is not a usually used phrase. If a restaurant wants to restrict food to only food they serve, they might use the phrasing
Outside food is prohibited.
as is the policy in many airport lounges.
If you are only offering food for consumption within the restaurant, you might say
No take outs. (AmE)
No take aways (BrE)
meaning food is not packaged to be taken to another place to be eaten.
To be clear about your offering, you might say
We only prepare food to be eaten on-premises.