1

This question is about the use of preposition 'at'.

In this passage:

In 715 CE, ten years after the foundation of the Umayyad Mosque at Damascus, the Umayyad Caliph Al-Walid engaged in the construction of the mosque that was to equal the former.

Why did they use "at"? I think it should be replaced by "in", I am confused.

This passge is taken from muslimheritage.com, and I'm studying the translation of it into Arabic in my university.

KillingTime
  • 6,206
siba
  • 11
  • The general question is well covered at 'got it at' or 'got it in?, but not this tweak. – Edwin Ashworth Aug 02 '23 at 13:51
  • 2
    Does this answer your question? "At" vs. "in" followed by a city name @Shoe's answer: 'The choice of in or at with a city depends on how speakers conceive that city in the context of the statement they are making.

    If the city is [being] conceived as a two-dimensional place in which to live and work, then in is the usual preposition. If, on the other hand, the city is conceived as a single point rather than as a place with dimensions, then [at] is the common choice. ...'. 'We'll stop to eat at Rhyl.'

     – Edwin Ashworth Aug 02 '23 at 15:07
  • 3
    It's always stuck in my memory that, when I was learning the piano as a child, I had a music book that said "W.A. Mozart - born at Salzburg 1756, died in Vienna 1791". - presumably because Vienna is a much bigger city - and similar with other composers' birthplaces. – Kate Bunting Aug 02 '23 at 16:16
  • Yes, thank you very much. In conclusion, both of "at" and "in" can be followed by name of city. Only the context indicates to the most suitable one. isn't right? @Edwin Ashworth – siba Aug 02 '23 at 16:16
  • Yes; I'd say that 'in Paris' etc is far more common than 'at Paris': you have to think a lot harder to come up with examples where the latter is the natural choice. 'Our Eurostar terminates at Paris and we transfer to Honfleur.' [RailtrailTours] – Edwin Ashworth Aug 02 '23 at 18:19

1 Answers1

3

at is grammatical, as is in. The at <place-name> collocation is frequently used in contexts where <place-name> is a landmark or a (notable) destination, whereas in refers to the place as a locale or environs, as a place that has a boundary.

Consider this text:

Clay tablets were used in Mesopotamia in the 3rd millennium BCE. The calamus, an instrument with a triangular point, was used to inscribe characters in moist clay. Fire was used to dry the tablets out. At Nineveh, over 20,000 tablets have been found, dating from the 7th century BCE; this was the archive and library of the kings of Assyria, who had workshops of copyists and conservationists at their disposal

[my emphasis]

TimR
  • 21,116
  • Can you add a supporting reference? – Edwin Ashworth Aug 02 '23 at 13:52
  • 1
    Just years of reading, especially history. But I'll see if I can find an authority that discusses this use of at. – TimR Aug 02 '23 at 13:54
  • Here's the NGram chart to show the usage. Apparently we're much more likely to stop *at* Honolulu en route to somewhere else than to stop *in* Honolulu. I think "en route" is relevant there, though (because it makes Honolulu a "landmark" staging point within a longer journey). – FumbleFingers Aug 02 '23 at 14:01
  • I think at in constructions like this is now archaic, but if you read lots of books written in previous centuries, you would have seen it used quite a bit. – Peter Shor Aug 02 '23 at 14:29
  • @PeterShor: Are you saying that at as in "At Nineveh" is an archaism? – TimR Aug 02 '23 at 14:30
  • @Tim: That's exactly what I'm saying. See this Ngram "church at London" was reasonably common in the 18th and 19th centuries, but today it occurs at 1/40 the frequency of "church in London". – Peter Shor Aug 02 '23 at 14:32
  • @PeterShor So much weight is not to be placed on ngram. Compare The American Consulate at Ponta Delgada assumes no responsibility for the professional competence or integrity of the persons or firms listed. – TimR Aug 02 '23 at 14:34
  • "A set of power at rest in front of the old Rock Island RR station at Iowa City" (1987) https://www.flickr.com/photos/john_leopard/50670247277/ – TimR Aug 02 '23 at 14:40
  • @Tim: It may not be an archaism quite yet, but it's well on its way to becoming one. Ngrams shows that in 1930, "American Consulate at" was six times more common than "American Consulate in". Now, it's the other way around. – Peter Shor Aug 02 '23 at 14:40
  • 1
    @PeterShor: It's not moribund. It's just a particular usage where the context that warrants "at" is not as common as the situation that warrants "in". – TimR Aug 02 '23 at 14:42
  • "The Idea of Order At Key West" by Wallace Stevens. tryfoundation.org/poems/43431/the-idea-of-order-at-key-west – TimR Aug 02 '23 at 14:45
  • Wallace Stevens wrote that poem in 1934, nearly 90 years ago. You can't use it to support the idea that in isn't replacing at in these constructions in the 21st century. – Peter Shor Aug 02 '23 at 15:07
  • @PeterShor: The train was 1987 and the consulate was 2011. The Stevens example shows the usage. – TimR Aug 02 '23 at 15:26