# EN: at / in +  city



## braz

Hi there,

I was just wondering when to use "in" and "at" for city.

For example you'd say "I am living in Prague" which is okay for me, but I've recently seen some sentences like "He died at Quebec" or "Made at Montreal".

I guess you'd never say "he died at London" right?

Thanks
braz

*Moderator note:* Multiple threads have been merged to create this one.


----------



## greenie

None of the sentences you gave can be used with the preposition "at". All of these sentences would require "in".  I can't think of a case in which you would use "at" for a city.


----------



## bobepine

The only example that springs to mind is if the city name refers to something else, such as a battle, e.g. saying someone died at Waterloo.


----------



## wildan1

bobepine said:


> The only example that springs to mind is if the city name refers to something else, such as a battle, e.g. saying someone died at Waterloo.


 
Yes, but even that is elliptical:_ He died at (the battle of) Waterloo._ Otherwise, we would say _He died in Waterloo._

_in _is the only preposition for cities in English


----------



## Tresley

Hello Braz,

In British English 'AT' + _city name_ can mean:
Whilst you were AT a university in a named city (i.e. studying there) or Whilst you were working AT offices/factories etc in a named city.

For example:

"Whilst I was at Liverpool" (i.e. whilst I was studying at Liverpool University)

"Whilst I was at Manchester (i.e. whilst I was working at the Manchester office/factory etc)

'AT' + _city name_ assumes something else to clarify.

Perhaps your examples assume something else, to clarify.

I hope this helps.


----------



## Forero

"He died at Québec" could mean that he was travelling and died when he got to Québec.

Do you have any context for your "at" sentences?  We normally say "made in Montréal."


----------



## paul-ny

I'll pile on in agreement. "At" isn't for cities. I think that even  in England, the usage "at Manchester" has Manchester standing for the university and not the city. "Died at Quebec" would have to be short for "died at the battle of Quebec." I suppose you could say "his long walk took him from Toronto to Montreal and he died at Quebec," meaning that he died at the point of his walk where he was in Quebec, but that is quite a stretch. And it would still be correct to use "in" there.


----------



## funnyhat

The only time I can think of using "at" is in a sports context: _Baltimore plays next at Chicago_.  But even there, the "Chicago" refers to the team and not the city.


----------



## Forero

If you go to a city, a park, or a hotel, you will arrive there at the city, the park, or the hotel.  You might also go in (into the city, park, or hotel), and then you would be in that city, park, or hotel.

For destinations and stops along a route we normally say _at_: meet me at the park, the Baltimore team plays next at the great city of Chicago, but we live and may die in the park or in the great city of Chicago.  And a traveler may die at Chicago.  Didn't President Harding die at San Francisco?

Hi, Braz.

Do you remember the context in which you saw "made at Montreal"?  It could be just a poor translation from French, but I can't say it has to be.


----------



## dasubergeek

The only AE usages I can think of for "at" + city would be:

sports teams (but even then it's standing in for "at the Chicago White Sox's home stadium")

train stations ("get off at Fullerton and take a number 43 bus"), though this stands for the station name and would be just as easily read as "get off at Times Square".

legal paperwork ("signed at Los Angeles before two witnesses known but unrelated to me, this eighth day of September two thousand eight") / university diplomas ("given at Los Angeles, this eighth day of September, year of our Lord two thousand eight").


----------



## Forero

_At_ is also used for events such as ceremonies, ballgames, world's fairs, etc., and the cities where they happen.

Back in the days when cities were small and far apart, "signed at Los Angeles" and "given at Los Angeles" would have been perfectly natural.  Besides, in this context, the preposition here mimics Spanish usage in the early days of Los Angeles, French usage in the early days of our legal system, and Latin usage in the early days of our educational system.


----------



## wildan1

Forero said:


> Back in the days when cities were small and far apart, "signed at Los Angeles" and "given at Los Angeles" would have been perfectly natural.


 
*Back in the days...* is the operative term for this. The usage of _at_ for a city is antiquated now, unless it is about sports games or train stops!


----------



## braz

Hi everyone,

Thanks very much for you answers... I am going to give you more context.

I saw "he died at Quebec" on an information billboard that is displayed in Quebec city and it was talking about the death of a guy during a battle.

Concerning "made at Montreal"; I saw that in my banker's office; there was this one degree hanging on the wall with this sentence at the end "Made at Montreal in June 2001".

Hope that helps,
cheers
braz


----------



## CapnPrep

There have been many discussions about this in English Only.
*Why ''at' instead of ''in''?
**in city / at town
**Preposition: I live <at, in> Barcelona.*

I encourage you to read those threads, but basically, if you are referring to the city itself as a location (and not using the name of the city to refer to its train station, football club, university, etc. etc.) the more commonly used preposition in both American and British usage is *in*.

The combination "*at* + city" is an older usage found in some formulaic expressions (e.g. "born/died at …", "at …" in the heading of a letter). But even in these cases, *in* can and should be used unless you are specifically aiming at a stilted, old-fashioned style. Obviously, if *at* is part of an official name (e.g. "University of <State> at <City>"), then you are stuck with it.


----------



## Forero

Hello again, braz.

There really is no rule that says we will use "in" for a city any more than we use "in" for a stadium or any place else. It depends on how we think of the place. If we are thinking about being within the walls of the stadium or within the boundary of the city, we say "in", but if we are not concerned about the boundary, we can very well say "at", whether it be a place where an important event happens/happened, a place along the way, or a place we know well.

"I am living in Prague" sounds perfectly natural, but "I am living at Prague" is not impossible or wrong at all. If I am thinking of Prague as a place where I have come to spend a month or so, "I am living at Prague" makes sense. I think "living at Prague" is unusual enough to need some context to support the use of _at_, but it is not bad English, or even old-fashioned English.

"Died at" is not as uncommon as "living at".  If a person died in battle at Québec, that's an event that took place there, at Québec. "Died at Québec" means died at the city of Québec, not at a battle in the city. The meaning is different, but you could be, and you could die, _at_ a battle _in_ Québec city or _in _a battle _at_ Québec city.

And a person can just as well die "at London" as "at Québec".

Now "made at Montréal" is not so easy to accept without more context than that it was in a document hanging on the wall. A degree is given, awarded, or bestowed, not made, so what is it that was "made at Montréal"?

I need more context to comment further on the wall document, but it would not be unnatural to say "The glass for the giant mirror was made at Corning, New York, and shipped to Cal Tech, where it was ground and silvered before carefully being placed in the telescope atop Mt. Palomar." And we can say "A hurricane remnant had come through and caused a great deal of flooding at Corning, but sandbags had held back the water as the solid slab of Pyrex-like glass slowly cooled."

We could say the glass was made in Corning, but because it was to be shipped elsewhere, "at Corning" fits the context better.  "Flooding at Corning" includes flooding both inside and outside the city limits, but "flooding in Corning" would not.


----------



## wildan1

_Made at Montreal_ is just a bad translation of _fait à Montréal_

I doubt you would see such a diploma in English  in any other province...!

But _Made in Montreal_ would only be appropriate to describe where the diploma was produced (manufactured). _Made in Canada, Made in USA_

The usual wording for a diploma is_ "Montreal, June 2001"_


----------



## braz

Hi guys,

Indeed I should have explained the context in the first post... my mistake!

However, I still do have a problem with this "at" thing... I've just noticed that on my TOEIC degree (similar to TOEFL but for professionals) that it is written like that:

"as administered under the auspices of ETS EUROPE
* at*: Paris, France
 Date: August 2008"

So it seems to exist even on official degrees...

Thanks all of you for your help.
braz


----------



## Forero

These exams are administered at several sites, Paris being one, hence the use of _at_.

Do you have any more about the "Made at Montreal" document?  I am still curious what was "made" there, as that is an essential part of the context that might help to explain why _at_ was chosen.


----------



## wildan1

braz said:


> "as administered under the auspices of ETS EUROPE
> *at*: Paris, France
> Date: August 2008"



Perhaps when they are _" faits à Paris "_ ...


----------



## HenryPez

Hello everybody,

I remember when I was at *(in?)* school a teacher made the difference between to live in and to live at. According to her if talking about a small town you would use at and if living in a city you'd use in.
Ex: I live *in *London.    I live *at *Fishguard.

Yet it sounds really strange to me. Is this rule true or not?


----------



## SwissPete

I would use *in *for a place, and *at *for a specific address.

I live *at *123 Mayberry Street *in *London.


----------



## Donaldos

Je ne vois pas bien à quoi cette personne pouvait faire référence.

Le choix entre _in_ et _at_ ne dépend généralement pas de la taille de l'endroit.


----------



## CapnPrep

HenryPez said:


> Yet it sounds really strange to me. Is this rule true or not?


It is no longer true for most speakers (any speakers?). Check out this post in one of the English Only threads I linked to above (#14).


----------



## Sedulia

Personally I would never, ever use _at_ for a city per se. To me, _at_ with a city name implies that something else follows the city name... a station, a stadium, a battle, etc. "The train stopped at New Orleans [station]" or "He died at Gettysburg [battle]"

But it is an older usage, which you see in books (there is a Christopher Marlowe play called "The Massacre at Paris," 1593), so maybe it has survived longer in the South than elsewhere. I still don't recall ever hearing anyone say it.

I just thought of another exception. I've seen a lot of hotels called "the Inn at..." with a city name afterwards. Small cities or villages, though.


----------



## HenryPez

So it's not used anymore. That's much clearer. Thanks a lot.


----------



## Forero

HenryPez said:


> So it's not used anymore. That's much clearer. Thanks a lot.


Clearer, but inaccurate. I have to disagree with the notion that we don't use _at Paris_, etc., or that is it old fashioned. It really depends on context.

In proper context, we use _at Paris_, etc., both in speech and in writing.

We choose prepositions in English based on meaning, and both _in_ and _at_ have multiple meanings with cities, some of which overlap. Usually, being at Paris is just the result of going to Paris.


----------



## CapnPrep

Forero said:


> I have to disagree with the notion that we don't use _at Paris_, etc., or that is it old fashioned.


That was not the notion in HenryPez's revival of this thread. The idea was that there is a difference in prepositional usage for small towns vs. large cities. Do you agree with that? The fact that you are arguing in favor of _at Paris_ suggests that you do not subscribe to HenryPez's teacher's rule any more than the rest of us (since Paris is not a small town).

The corollary is not that _at_ is no longer used at all with town/city names in current English, but that its use was more widespread and regular, in ordinary contexts, in the past than it is today. Do you agree with that?


----------



## Forero

There probably was and is a difference in frequency of _at_ vs. _in_ that correlated and correlates with town size as described, and this correlation may have been somewhat greater a century or two ago, but there are lots of other correlations we could look at that might be more illustrative.

My point is that, at least currently, speaker's intent and whole context weigh more heavily on our choice of prepositions than which preposition is statistically more common depending on city size or remoteness or verb "neutrality", whatever that is/was.


----------



## dasubergeek

HenryPez, that is a British usage. In AE, we would normally use "in" for both of those, unless you're talking about a person (like "chez") or occasionally a named building. I live at my parents' house; I live in Whooping Splungeley; I live at the Royal Hotel; I live in Aix-en-Provence. "At" isn't incorrect but in the US it will sound slightly odd.


----------



## yuechu

In Canada, I have not seen/heard "at" used for cities either except in some very formal contexts (which come up very rarely) which were mentioned above.
I would also assume "Made at Montreal" was an error in translation, unless it is correct in British English (which it seems to be.. ?) or was on an old object.


----------



## dasubergeek

Baosheng, the only way I could think of "made at Montréal" would be in the case of very formal contract writing, like the Papers of Confederation, "signed at Charlottesville this 1st day of July, etc."


----------



## Assurancetourix

Contrary to the last couple of posts I don't think there is any difference between AE and BE on the use of _at_ versus _in_ for cities and towns.

[…]


----------



## dasubergeek

I can't think of that last time I heard _at_ used for a city in AE other than formal contract writing. We would always use _in_. I don't know BE well enough to know if that's the case there.


----------



## Rosy Abelia

Hello,

I never knew the use of those prepositions .

In the sentence below, i have to say *at *toulouse or at can be used when for example we say (at home) 

_The last seminar will take place *at* Toulouse or* in* Paris_. 

When we talk about cities/countries is better to use *in* "i'm arriving in??



thank you in advance


----------



## Franco-filly

We tend to say: The seminar will take place *in *Toulouse / I’ll be arriving *in *Paris on Wednesday 
But “The seminar will take place *at* the Toulouse mairie / I’ll be arriving *at*  the Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport….


----------



## Rosy Abelia

Thank you Franco-filly. So *at* is referring to a place, a common noun isn't so ? And *In* is more for proper nouns ? (cities) ?


----------



## djweaverbeaver

I'm not sure I completely understand your question, but we use _*at *_when speaking about a physical location.  It doesn't matter whether it's a proper or common noun.

_The seminar will take place *at the museum*_ (common noun)_. The seminar will take place *at the Pompidou Centre*_ (proper noun)_._

We use in when speaking about geographical locations such as cities, towns, and countries, and when we are speaking about a location inside another location.

_The seminar will take place *in Toulouse/France/Europe*_ (geographical location)_. The seminar will take place *in the conference room/in the lecture hall/in the ballroom/in the Jasmine Building *_(a location within a location)_._


----------



## Souxie

Bonsoir,

J'ai cette hésitation concernant la traduction de à quand il s'agit d'une destination. 
Par exemple: dans quelques jours je serai à Paris.

Je ne sais pas si je dois traduire par in Paris ou at Paris, et franchement je sens une confusion qui me gêne à ce sujet. Je pense qu'il y a d'autres exemples où je ne suis jamais sûre de moi entre in/at/on/into/onto ... Bref, restons sur ce cas précis: in a few days I'll be in ou at Paris ?


----------



## OLN

go to a city (destination)
be in a city (ville *dans* laquelle on se trouve)

Je ne trouve pas d'exemple avec _at_, excepté celui-ci, où Paris est un adjectif : "be at [the] Paris airport" (?)


----------



## Omelette

Do accept that suggestion, dear Souxie, because it is – to the best of my knowledge – 100% correct. 
And the same with other verbs. I arrive *in *Madrid. I live *in *London. I wake up *in *Venice. And so on…


----------



## KennyHun

Could someone explain why the Wikipedia article on Taiwan has sentences like:

In 1887, the Qing upgraded the island's administration from Taiwan Prefecture of Fujian to Fujian-Taiwan-Province (福建臺灣省), the twentieth in the empire, with its capital *at *Taipei.
Koxinga established the Kingdom of Tungning (1662–1683), with his capital *at* Tainan.
Japanese forces entered the capital *at* Tainan and quelled this resistance on 21 October 1895. (This one I find all the more strange as at this point Taipei was supposed to be the capital city of the province.)

And the rest doesn't look like it's bad English, so I'm assuming these are entirely correct. Does it have to do with these places being designated as capitals (leading to a more "point-like" interpretation where the city is not a "3D" place but rather a single distinct location) or with them being described in a historical context or with something else? And in the third example (as, like I said, Taipei became the capital earlier, in 1894), could it be implying that Tainan is "one of the capitals" (as in, Taipei had already been designated as the new capital, but there may have been a transitional period).

Thank you.


----------



## wildan1

It sounds very strange to me. 

But anything goes on Wikipedia--feel free to go in and correct it according to the advice above!


----------



## Forero

It sounds natural to me. Think of a map of Taiwan on which Koxinga selected a place for his capital (separately from the Qing's capital at Taipei). The preposition _at_ is usual for geographical locations and destinations.

I am not familiar with this history, but perhaps the Qing controlled the north end of the island and the resistance temporarily controlled the south.


----------



## djweaverbeaver

I agree with @Forero.  *At *is the correct and normal preposition in each of these sentences.  I can't even think of another preposition that I would use in its stead in this context.  Since the city is within some larger geographical entity (ex. region, state, province, countries), in wouldn't make sense.  @KennyHun is right in suggesting that in this sense *at *is seen as a singular, dimensionless geographical point as opposed to _*in*_.


----------



## Albatrosspro

Another vote for Forero's point of view. I don't mean this in a rude or condescending way, but I think it's the case that some people either answer quickly without thinking of geographic, historical, and spoken/written differences; or else they have simply not read very much or very broadly. I don't know the details of the in/at distinction or its development throughout time, but I know that at + city was, has been, and is acceptable if not preferable in some cases. 

Yet another instance where I wish we had our own language historian!


----------

