This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
English language (monolingual) [Non-PRO] General / Conversation / Greetings / Letters
English term or phrase:At/in [city name]
Although I'm used to using 'in' for any cities or villages, it really confuses me to see the use of 'at', unless in the context of 'the train stops at [town]', for example. However, 'he was born at [town]' sounds unnatural to me, and although most sources I've found agree, I've now been told that in British English this is the way to do it, with 'in' only being used for big and/or important cities. What is the correct way to do it in this case, or are both 'in' and 'at' correct?
Explanation: Here is a link to using "in" as a preposition of place: https://www.thoughtco.com › ... › English as a Second Language › Grammar It says that "in" is used for cities, regions, etc., and "at" is used for places within cities, regions, etc. I'm a native US English speaker, and I've never used "at" London, or "at" New York. I know that British speakers do, but perhaps that has just become customary, but not necessarily accepted as grammatically correct. British speakers, you may want to chime in here. Also, you can see the book "The Essentials of English" by Anne Hogue, where it states that "at" is used for general areas.
First. I found this discussion so clarifying and therefore liked it very much. I'm not the Asker, but thx anyway. If I may add my pinch of salt, over 50 years ago in 9th grade, a fine old lady taught me that at should be used with small places and in with big places. I took it for: at Stratford on Avon but in London and kept walking that path. Now I know that mine was a diminishing interpretation and for sure the vast usage that you so aptly perused is not true today. In some respect it might have been ("old fashioned") and the discussion posted by the "Indian guy" could be illuminating. In fact, even in my trade (banking) I've often come across words and usage of words by Indian correspondents that would force many a UK native to open the dictionary as I had to, just to find out that I was the poor speaker. I believe Indian (especially when they write) should be granted the title of Custodians of British English. Which in no way hinders or nullifies the evolution of English. (It's never too late.) Dear all, you've been so good I feel compelled to thank you again. Maurizio
Yes, I know. And as I said at the beginning of my comment, I think John Bagnall's post is pretty good.
I mentioned the Indian guy because what he says illustrates an idea some people seem to have about this, although it conflicts with standard current UK English (in my opinion).
I wasn't referring to the post by the Indian guy. I alluded to the first post, by John Bagnall. Although it may not answer to the issue of being "old-fashioned", it may add some new insights. Cheers!
It seems a pretty good explanation to me, though I am sure there are other factors involved.
But what caught my eye was the response from an Indian contributor, who says he has 30 years' teaching experience:
'"At" is usually used to indicate small places ---like villages He resides at his village. We met her at her school. "in" is usually used to indicate large places, districts, towns, cities etc., I live at Sira in Karnataka.'
I don't think this is a reliable criterion and it doesn't match my own usage, but what I find interesting is that it does match what Francisca was told.
Both she and I have suggested that this view may be old-fashioned, and although I don't want to resort to stereotypes, I do find that Indian English quite often seems old-fashioned to me.
I was born in a hospital too, and that's what I would say; I wouldn't say "I was born at a hospital". But if I give the name of the hospital, or otherwise qualify "hospital", it is natural to me to use "at": I was born at St Helier Hospital, I was born at the local hospital, I was born at a hospital near my home. I might use "in" in these cases, but I don't think I normally would unless I wanted to convey the idea of being born in a hospital rather than at home or somewhere else. If I just want to specify the location, "at" is more natural to me.
The only results I could find were also all from far in the past, so this person being a bit more old-fashioned would make sense. I rarely see 'at' being used for cities/countries (as I said, unless it's about a train or bus) and was never taught to use this either, but not being a native speaker, I was starting to doubt myself. Thank you very much, I will continue with 'in' instead!
And I should of course add that those ngram results will include contexts in which "born at" is followed by something other than a place name and is idiomatic: "born at the local hospital", for example, so they don't reflect the frequency of "born at" specifically with cities, towns and villages. The predominance of "born in" in those context will be greater than those graphs indicate.
I should also say that it's not just a matter of "born in/at": "in" is very much more common than "at" with place names, regardless of what precedes it and regardless of the size of the city/town/village: "I met him in London/Nether Wallop", not "at".
Clearly there was near parity in British English up to the mid-nineteenth century, and since then "born in" has been gaining ground. In American English, apart from a brief period near the beginning of the nineteenth century (probably a small sample in any case), "born in" has always predominated. In both varieties of English "born in" is very much more common nowadays.
As a native speaker of British English I would certainly recommend you to use "born in" with the name of a town, city or village, regardless of size.
That doesn't mean that "born at" with a place name is never used in British English, but it's very much less common and to me it never really sounds right. It's interesting to note that in one of Lianne's references someone points out that genealogists use "born at". I think this is symptomatic of a diachronic shift in usage: "born at" used to be much more common in this context than it is now, and genealogists are probably using what their historical sources say.
Here are Google ngram graphs for born in vs born at from 1800 to 2000. First British English:
Explanation: Here is a link to using "in" as a preposition of place: https://www.thoughtco.com › ... › English as a Second Language › Grammar It says that "in" is used for cities, regions, etc., and "at" is used for places within cities, regions, etc. I'm a native US English speaker, and I've never used "at" London, or "at" New York. I know that British speakers do, but perhaps that has just become customary, but not necessarily accepted as grammatically correct. British speakers, you may want to chime in here. Also, you can see the book "The Essentials of English" by Anne Hogue, where it states that "at" is used for general areas.
peer agreement (net): +3