At New York or In New York?
Public Internet Access
I was always under the impression that if someone asks where Joe Schmoe
is: He's in New York visiting his mom. But I hear a lot of people on
the news and in general conversation saying he's at New York. Which is
correct? Please advise.
Jan
--
Public Internet Access / Access and equipment _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/
Glendale Public Library / provided by a grant from _/ _/ _/ _/
Glendale, CA, USA / the California State _/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/
/ Library under the LSCA _/ _/ _/ _/
pcal...@netcom.com / _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/
____________________/ The above views are not necessarily those of the GPL
Polar
>I was always under the impression that if someone asks where Joe Schmoe
>is: He's in New York visiting his mom. But I hear a lot of people on
>the news and in general conversation saying he's at New York. Which is
>correct? Please advise.
Where on earth could you have heard people saying "he's AT New York"??
No native speaker would say that. Were these foreigners who had only
a bowing acquaintance with English, or ??
Hypothesis: Could they have been saying "He's AT New York
University", or something similar?
If it's the city of New York, one *must* say "in New York".
Polar
>
>J
Bill Fisher
In article <559g8c$h...@nadine.teleport.com>, Baty <ba...@teleport.com> writes:
"The train stops at Hartford, New York, and Oshkosh."
>
> And then, of course, there's on Fort Knox, on Fort Ord, on Fort Sheridan.
> I lived *on* military forts for years, but civilians never seemed to get
> the hang of it. You live in a town, but you live on a fort ("fort"
> refers to the entire military post, not to a fortress; you could live
> in a fortress if you wanted to).
>
It seems I've heard "at Fort X" all my life (as a civilian), as in
"Roddy learned to fire a machine gun when he was 3 and his father
was at Fort Bliss".
- billf
jerry thompson
Hank Holman wrote:
>
> Baty <ba...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) wrote:
> >>On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 22:42:35 GMT, pcal...@netcom.com (Public Internet
> >>Access) wrote:
> >>
> >>>I was always under the impression that if someone asks where Joe Schmoe
> >>>is: He's in New York visiting his mom. But I hear a lot of people on
> >>>the news and in general conversation saying he's at New York. Which is
> >>>correct? Please advise.
> >>
> >>Where on earth could you have heard people saying "he's AT New York"??
> >>No native speaker would say that. Were these foreigners who had only
> >>a bowing acquaintance with English, or ??
> >>
> >>Hypothesis: Could they have been saying "He's AT New York
> >>University", or something similar?
> >>
> >>If it's the city of New York, one *must* say "in New York".
> >>
>
> > I lived *on* military forts for years, but civilians never seemed to get
> >the hang of it. You live in a town, but you live on a fort ("fort"
> >refers to the entire military post, not to a fortress; you could live
> >in a fortress if you wanted to).
>
>
> Now that military installations are mentioned I have a few thoughts.
> I often hear US Army installations referred to as bases when they are
> in fact posts. Army posts may be named Fort or Camp or a few other
> unusual terms such as The Presidio (sp?). But all are posts. They
> are not bases. I believe it is incorrect to say "he is stationed at
> an army base in Florida"; or, "I left my car on base". Post is the
> correct term. I question the usage "lived on Fort Knox". I lived at
> Fort Knox and occupying quarters on the post my children attended
> schools in......." Nor would one live on Camp Eustis. The term
> post is derived, I presume, from old Army outposts in the West.
>
> The term base is, I believe, reserved for Navy and Air Force
> installations. Many are named base..."Columbus Air Force Base, MS"
> many are not. The term base is derived from the basing of
> craft-- -nautical or aero - - at the installation.
>
> Although one might say "The Second Infanry Divisione, now based at
> Fort Benning, GA is scheduled to be transferred to Fort Jackson, SC, a
> large post previously devoted exclusively to basic training."
> Stationed would be better usage than based but I think based would be
> ok. But the basing of the unit there would in no sense make Fort
> Benning an Army base. It is an Army post. It is a Fort. It is a
> military installation and -- from a technical land standpoint -- a
> reservation.
>
> Anyone else agree or disagree with me about this....or give a damn one
> way or the other. I was in the brown shoe Army and it irritates me a
> great deal to hear an Army post called a base.
You are the one who was posted; you have the right to feel irritated.
Conversely, I suppose I have the same reaction when I hear someone say
"from whom," "to whom," "with which," etc. At this stage of our
language's development, this is pretty stilted stuff in casual
conversation. It always puts me in mind of Churchill's wonderful
response to his editor's "correction" of one such breech:
"This is the sort of thing up with which I will not put!"
Truly Donovan
Bill Fisher wrote:
>
> In article <559g8c$h...@nadine.teleport.com>, Baty <ba...@teleport.com> writes:
> >
> > I lived *on* military forts for years, but civilians never seemed to get
> > the hang of it. You live in a town, but you live on a fort ("fort"
> > refers to the entire military post, not to a fortress; you could live
> > in a fortress if you wanted to).
> >
>
> "Roddy learned to fire a machine gun when he was 3 and his father
> was at Fort Bliss".
But isn't the "at" there a shortening of "stationed at"? We don't know
where anyone lived in that case. (And in some cultures, one can be
"seconded to." That never happens to Americans, of course.)
--
Truly Donovan
"Industrial-strength SGML," Prentice Hall 1996
ISBN 0-13-216243-1
http://www.prenhall.com
Hank Holman
Baty <ba...@teleport.com> wrote:
>s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) wrote:
>>On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 22:42:35 GMT, pcal...@netcom.com (Public Internet
>>Access) wrote:
>>
>>>I was always under the impression that if someone asks where Joe Schmoe
>>>is: He's in New York visiting his mom. But I hear a lot of people on
>>>the news and in general conversation saying he's at New York. Which is
>>>correct? Please advise.
>>
>>Where on earth could you have heard people saying "he's AT New York"??
>>No native speaker would say that. Were these foreigners who had only
>>a bowing acquaintance with English, or ??
>>
>>Hypothesis: Could they have been saying "He's AT New York
>>University", or something similar?
>>
>>If it's the city of New York, one *must* say "in New York".
>>
>And then, of course, there's on Fort Knox, on Fort Ord, on Fort Sheridan.
> I lived *on* military forts for years, but civilians never seemed to get
>the hang of it. You live in a town, but you live on a fort ("fort"
>refers to the entire military post, not to a fortress; you could live
>in a fortress if you wanted to).
>Linda
John Davies
In article <pcallgplE...@netcom.com>, Public Internet Access
<pcal...@netcom.com> writes
>I was always under the impression that if someone asks where Joe Schmoe
>is: He's in New York visiting his mom. But I hear a lot of people on
>the news and in general conversation saying he's at New York. Which is
>correct? Please advise.
>
Interesting. I'd have said that "in New York" (or wherever) was the
universal modern usage in the context you quote. When speaking of
cities, "at" is nowadays reserved for certain special situations:
Ships in port: "The Queen Mary, currently at New York..."
Other modes of transport: "We changed trains at York"
Universities: "Jim's reading history at Cambridge" (implied: at
the university of that name)
Performances: "Pavarotti is to sing at Salzburg next year"
(implied: at the Salzburg Festival)
Rivers: "Yesterday the Rhine overflowed its banks at Cologne and
at Koblenz"
"At" seems to be relate therefore either to highly transient visits,
especially to the idea of passing through, or to contexts in which the
name of the town is shorthand for an institution or event.
But I think the dominance of "in" may be a relatively modern feature of
the language. I've just returned from Singapore, where I was struck by
the number of gravestones in the 19th century cemetery there which had
inscriptions like "John Smith, died aged 42 at Singapore, 23rd June
1846". At first I thought that might be a variation on the "ship in
port" theme, but the large number of such inscriptions, many of them
clearly about long-term residents, led me to doubt that.
I shall be interested to read what others have to say. Maybe you have
spotted the first signs of a significant shift in usage.
--
John Davies
Alin Taichi
jerry thompson wrote:
>
> You are the one who was posted; you have the right to feel irritated.
>
> Conversely, I suppose I have the same reaction when I hear someone say
> "from whom," "to whom," "with which," etc. At this stage of our
> language's development, this is pretty stilted stuff in casual
> conversation. It always puts me in mind of Churchill's wonderful
> response to his editor's "correction" of one such breech:
>
> "This is the sort of thing up with which I will not put!"
Would appreciate a brief definition of "stilted." Tks.
Markus Laker
Alin Taichi <taic...@ms10.hinet.net>:
> Would appreciate a brief definition of "stilted." Tks.
Okay: brief and unnatural.
Now, it took me fifteen seconds to find that definition in the nearest
dictionary: less time than it would have taken me to compose a concise
definition of my own. You are obviously interested in learning English;
why not buy an English dictionary from your nearest bookshop? You will
be able to find instant answers to most of your questions, and we will
be spared the bother of looking up words for you.
Markus Laker.
[Posted and mailed.]
--
If you quote me, I would appreciate an email copy of your article.
Lee Rudolph
la...@tcp.co.uk (Markus Laker) writes:
>Alin Taichi <taic...@ms10.hinet.net>:
>
>> Would appreciate a brief definition of "stilted." Tks.
>
>Okay: brief and unnatural.
No, no: *short* and unnatural.
It's an autantonym.
Lee Rudolph
TsuiDB
> jerry thompson wrote:
> <relevance snipped> At this stage of our
> > language's development, this is pretty stilted stuff in casual
> > conversation. It always puts me in mind of Churchill's wonderful
> > response to his editor's "correction" of one such breech:
> >
> > "This is the sort of thing up with which I will not put!"
Version I heard was "That is the sort of *arrant pedantry* up with which
I *shall* not put!" But then, perhaps it's just my stilted mind
working overtime . . . .
Stephanie in HK
Baty
I don't know what an autantonym is but I always thought stilted means
pompous.
Linda
Truly Donovan
I don't agree. They often go hand in hand, but "stilted" to me means
excessively formal and unnatural and could be the result of deference or
ignorance or timidity rather than pomposity.
Mark Brader
> > Where on earth could you have heard people saying "he's AT New York"??
They used to a few decades ago, though. I've come across it in early
20th century writing -- maybe Stephen Leacock. Perhaps it was already
obsolescent or regional/national dialect at that time; I don't know.
> I have heard AT used frequently when refering to sports teams, as in, 'The
> Senators are AT New York to play the Islanders'.
True, but if you wanted to say that their plane hadn't arrived yet, you'd
say that the team wasn't IN New York yet. This sports "at" has a special
sense -- it's more like "at school" or "at work" than like "at the corner
of Carlton and Church". To the extent that it has a specific geographical
meaning at all, that meaning is "at the stadium in New York where the
Islanders play their home games."
--
Mark Brader "C was developed for the programmer
m...@sq.com (two of them, in fact)"
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto -- Alasdair Grant
My text in this article is in the public domain.
sj...@aol.com
Hmmm. I live "in Boston" but also "on Beacon Hill." Could the difference
in pronouns used with my city and my neighborhood have to do with the
elevation?
Regards from Deborah
(a/k/a fin...@a1.tch.harvard.edu)
"I'll say 'potato,' and you can rhyme it
with 'Pocano' if doing so makes you feel
any more free from intellectual tyrrany.
It's your larynx. (Greg Diamond, 11/2/96)
Polar
On 5 Nov 1996 20:30:14 GMT, sj...@aol.com wrote:
>Hmmm. I live "in Boston" but also "on Beacon Hill." Could the difference
>in pronouns used with my city and my neighborhood have to do with the
>elevation?
Not necessarily. You could live "on the periphery", or "on the
Village Green", or "on the lake shore".
Polar
>
00nzwi...@bsuvc.bsu.edu
In article <55i6e4$i...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, da...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Robert McLean) writes:
>
> Polar (s.m...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>> On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 22:42:35 GMT, pcal...@netcom.com (Public Internet
>> Access) wrote:
>>
>>>is: He's in New York visiting his mom. But I hear a lot of people on
>>>the news and in general conversation saying he's at New York. Which is
>>>correct? Please advise.
>>
>> a bowing acquaintance with English, or ??
>>
>> Hypothesis: Could they have been saying "He's AT New York
>> University", or something similar?
>>
>> If it's the city of New York, one *must* say "in New York".
>>
> Senators are AT New York to play the Islanders'.
>
>
Way back in the early '40s I was taught to say in a city but at a
town. Still seems to work.
--
Nyal Z. Williams
00nzwi...@bsuvc.bsu.edu
Wendell Cochran
In article <1996Nov7...@bsuvc.bsu.edu>,
<00nzwi...@bsuvc.bsu.edu> wrote:
>In article <55i6e4$i...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, da...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Robert McLean) writes:
>>
>> Polar (s.m...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>>> On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 22:42:35 GMT, pcal...@netcom.com (Public Internet
>>> Access) wrote:
>>>
>>>>I was always under the impression that if someone asks where Joe Schmoe
>>>>is: He's in New York visiting his mom. But I hear a lot of people on
>>>>the news and in general conversation saying he's at New York. Which is
>>>>correct? Please advise.
[snip]
Consider scale & precision: Your mother in law is _in_ New York City or
she's outside, though maybe _near_. Hurricane Harriet is likely to be too
big to fit inside the city limits, so it's _at_ NYC.
In newspaper work I've noticed that if a writer isn't familiar with a town
the preposition tends to be _at_. Otherwise, _in_.
Wendell Cochran
West Seattle
Julian Pardoe
Wendell Cochran wrote:
>
> In article <1996Nov7...@bsuvc.bsu.edu>,
> <00nzwi...@bsuvc.bsu.edu> wrote:
> >In article <55i6e4$i...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, da...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Robert McLean) writes:
> >>
> >> Polar (s.m...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
> >>> On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 22:42:35 GMT, pcal...@netcom.com (Public Internet
> >>> Access) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>I was always under the impression that if someone asks where Joe Schmoe
> >>>>is: He's in New York visiting his mom. But I hear a lot of people on
> >>>>the news and in general conversation saying he's at New York. Which is
> >>>>correct? Please advise.
>
> [snip]
>
> Consider scale & precision: Your mother in law is _in_ New York City or
> she's outside, though maybe _near_. Hurricane Harriet is likely to be too
> big to fit inside the city limits, so it's _at_ NYC.
I agree that a hurricane might be "at New York" because we're viewing NY not
as an area but as a point on the map of the east coast, the map along which
we're following the hurricane's progress.
I would say that (in my dialect) "at" is used for small towns and villages
and "in" for larger places. If in doubt use "in".
> In newspaper work I've noticed that if a writer isn't familiar with a town
> the preposition tends to be _at_. Otherwise, _in_.
Maybe this is because one tends not to view a place as a point if one is
familiar with it: it becomes an area with an inside.
-- jP --
Steffan Berridge
Or "on the bottom of the ocean" ... then you would need gills
"on the side of your head"
steff
samara...@gmail.com
> is: He's in New York visiting his mom. But I hear a lot of people on
> the news and in general conversation saying he's at New York. Which is
> correct? Please advise.
>
> --
> Public Internet Access / Access and equipment _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/
> Glendale Public Library / provided by a grant from _/ _/ _/ _/
> Glendale, CA, USA / the California State _/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/
> / Library under the LSCA _/ _/ _/ _/
> pcal...@netcom.com / _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/
> ____________________/ The above views are not necessarily those of the GPL
At (Location), On (Date).
Is it correct? Because this Location is normally a city or a country...
HVS
wrote:
> > I was always under the impression that if someone asks where Joe
> > is: He's in New York visiting his mom. But I hear a lot of
people on
> > the news and in general conversation saying he's at New York.
> > correct? Please advise.
> >
> > Jan
> > --
> > Public Internet Access / Access and equipment _/_/_/_/
> > Glendale Public Library / provided by a grant from _/ _/
> > Glendale, CA, USA / the California State _/ _/_/
_/_=
> > ____________________/ The above views are not necessarily those
> I see some documents signed and dated like this:
> At (Location), On (Date).
> Is it correct? Because this Location is normally a city or a
country...
which I've issued/received cheques (Canada and the UK), the "location
where signed" isn't specified.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanE (30 years) & BrE (34 years),
indiscriminately mixed
John Varela
> Em terça-feira, 29 de outubro de 1996 06:00:00 UTC-2, Public Internet Access escreveu:
ago?
--
John Varela
John Varela
> > is: He's in New York visiting his mom. But I hear a lot of people on
> > the news and in general conversation saying he's at New York. Which is
> > correct? Please advise.
Also, an entertainer might be appearing or a meeting might be held
AT New York.
In general, however, a person or thing passively present is IN New
York.
--
John Varela
Peter Moylan
I've noticed this before: people who resurrect ancient threads don't
seem to read the answers that are already there.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
> On 2017-Apr-14 11:01, John Varela wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 20:55:01 UTC, samara...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Em terça-feira, 29 de outubro de 1996 06:00:00 UTC-2, Public Internet Access escreveu:
> > Were you aware that you were responding to a message from 21 years
> > ago?
>
> And that there were already good replies back then.
>
> I've noticed this before: people who resurrect ancient threads don't
> seem to read the answers that are already there.
are shown by some sort of google search available via gmail ARE UTTERLY UNAWARE
that they have been inserted into an ancient newsgroup thread?
John Varela
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 2017-Apr-14 11:01, John Varela wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 20:55:01 UTC, samara...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Em terça-feira, 29 de outubro de 1996 06:00:00 UTC-2, Public Internet Access escreveu:
> >
> > Were you aware that you were responding to a message from 21 years
> > ago?
>
> And that there were already good replies back then.
>
> I've noticed this before: people who resurrect ancient threads don't
> seem to read the answers that are already there.
--
John Varela
Ian Jackson
<newl...@verizon.net> writes
location.
"IN" is usually used when referring to "in the town". As such, I
wouldn't say that an entertainer was appearing AT New York. Instead, he
would be appearing IN New York, ON Broadway, AT the New Amsterdam
Theatre.
>
--
Ian
Harrison Hill
that which is done is that which shall be done: and there
is no new thing under the sun".
:)
RH Draney
Ian Jackson
writes
--
Ian
Ross
> In message <51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-oj8wNnfveSdw@localhost>, John Varela
> <newl...@verizon.net> writes
> >On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 20:55:01 UTC, samara...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> > I was always under the impression that if someone asks where Joe Schmoe
> >> > is: He's in New York visiting his mom. But I hear a lot of people on
> >> > the news and in general conversation saying he's at New York. Which is
> >> > correct? Please advise.
> >
> >An airplane lands or a ship docks or a train arrives AT New York.
> >
> >Also, an entertainer might be appearing or a meeting might be held
> >AT New York.
> >
> >In general, however, a person or thing passively present is IN New
> >York.
>
> Indeed. "AT" is usually used when referring to a destination or
> location.
but it won't tell you how to choose between "IN" and "AT".
> "IN" is usually used when referring to "in the town". As such, I
> wouldn't say that an entertainer was appearing AT New York. Instead, he
> would be appearing IN New York, ON Broadway, AT the New Amsterdam
> Theatre.
for streets (USEng), "AT" for various institutions or human loci (at school,
at his grandmother's, at Harvard).
For destinations, "TO" is the basic preposition (to New York, to Broadway,
to the New Amsterdam Theatre).
The tricky stuff with which this thread is concerned arises when one is
thinking of points on a transport network. The ship arrives AT New York,
and once it has arrived it could be said to be AT New York, but more commonly
in a place the size of NYC one would name a particular locus (AT Pier 99,
likewise for other modes of transport: AT JFK, AT Penn Station). These things belong to the "AT" category for location; from there, I think, they get their use with "arrive", and also the extension to use with the name of the city.
I think you could also say "arrived IN New York", particularly if by private transport, where there is no fixed network. But again it's a location preposition. It's a feature of this verb: "arrived TO" is just impossible.