3

I was reading Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, translated by Edward FitzGerald. In introduction, the translator writes:

Khayyam was born at Naishapur.

I always thought that we needed to use in in such a case. Am I wrong, or is the usage of at legitimate but perhaps old-fashioned?

Edit: A similar question was asked before, which lead people to think that mine is a duplicate of that. However, it is not, because that question asks In which case should we use 'in' or 'at' for a city?", while what I am asking is Why 'at' is used in a case we are taught 'in' would be appropriate? To be more specific, I was born in a city is the widely accepted usage today, probably due to the fact that we perceive a city as a three-dimensional space in that context, referring to the most upvoted answer to the referred question. My question should be seen as a counter-example to the answers given to that question, because I provide an example, where FitzGerald wrote born at a city, and wonder if that is just an old-fashioned usage that we no longer use or there is more to it.

FatihAkici
  • 181
  • 2
    When I was learning the piano as a child, I remember noticing how the books of exam pieces used to say things like "W.A. Mozart; born at Salzburg 1756, died in Vienna 1791", as though 'in' was only considered appropriate for the largest cities. – Kate Bunting Jul 28 '19 at 06:56
  • This question comes up quite often. Just one example: Difference between “at” and “in” when specifying location – Michael Harvey Jul 28 '19 at 08:33
  • 1
    @Michael That’s somewhat different, though – of all the answers there, only Barrie England’s makes any note of the possible use of at with city names, which is what this question is about. (Actually, I think it’s what the other question was really about as well, since Puri is a city, but the answers all seem to have taken it for a generic question about when to use in and when to use at.) – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jul 28 '19 at 10:41
  • 1
    @Fatih It’s legitimate, but old-fashioned. Like Kate, my impression is that it wasn’t used willy-nilly, really, but I’ve never quite managed to get a good grasp on when people used to use at for cities. Cities in India and other colonised parts of the British Empire seem to have been especially prone to being _at_’ed, but I don’t know why. Many old books also have “Printed at [City]” on the title page. I think this is an excellent question. This isn’t a matter of American English, though, so I’ve removed that tag (and improved the formatting). – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jul 28 '19 at 10:43
  • @Janus the data in your comment would improve the question, because it's not just about FitzGerald, really. – Andrew Leach Jul 28 '19 at 10:59
  • An interesting evaluation system. Necessary ........ deprecated ... illegitimate (I'm guessing that 'deprecated' lies nearer the 'illegitimate' end). Svartvik proposed a 5-point acceptability scale. But no 'illegitimate'; do the Grammar Police take immediate action? Would FitzGerald be looking at a long sentence? – Edwin Ashworth Jul 28 '19 at 13:53
  • @EdwinAshworth My question is not a duplicate of the one you referred to. That question asks "In which case should we use 'in' or 'at' for a city?", while what I am asking is "Why 'at' is used in a case we are taught 'in' would be appropriate?" You unfriendly and arrogant tone sounded like you are a true English language expert, who has a high standard in choosing the perfect words, and would nitpick otherwise; it is disappointing that you are not able to understand what you read. – FatihAkici Jul 28 '19 at 14:19
  • My tone was not at all intended to be arrogant; I'm sorry if it came / comes over that way. I'm trying to improve not just your but our approach to acceptability in English grammar. I'm not saying that Svartvik's model was the finished article, but I'm trying to point out the need to really examine what we mean by 'necessary' / 'acceptable' / 'illegitimate' / 'non-standard' etc. Since linguists assessing certain sentences disagree amongst themselves over acceptability, how can we label such sentences? Should we use them? // What is 'such a case' in your question? I can't see how ... – Edwin Ashworth Jul 28 '19 at 14:46
  • 1
    Shoe's and D.F.'s answers are not relevant here. [Born] 'in' would be the default choice, 'at' idiosyncratic at best. /// These Google Ngrams indicate that 'was born in' is the normal choice, though 'was born at' is not unknown (though the former is now ten times as common). I've checked for false positives (temporal). – Edwin Ashworth Jul 28 '19 at 14:55

1 Answers1

5

You are correct; we would generally use in today.

The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam was translated by Fitzgerald in 1859. Since then, the preposition generally used with born in/at [city] has changed.

See this Ngram

The Ngram shows that in 1800, the usage born at Paris was much more common. Now, the usage born in Paris is much more common. The cross-over date, when both expressions were equally common, is something like 1880.

Peter Shor
  • 88,407