"died at New York"

Question

While doing archival work I bumped into a few instances where the awkward verbiage "died at New York" appeared. Research using Google Books led me to these examples from over a century ago:

died at New York City, October 8 1879 [1]
Colonel Henry Steel Olcott married, in Trinity Church, at New Rochelle, New York, April 26, 1860 (same source two pages down)
Commodore Alfred Van Santvoord, Son of..., was born at Utica, New York, January 23, 1819 (same source 2 pages further down)

There seem to be a lot of similar examples from that period of time, just to list a few more: this, this, this, this, this. "At New York" or "at" a city just grinds on my ear and sounds like something an English learner would say. Why did they use "at" in this period of time? And was it a common choice of preposition to go with a city back in the day? If there has indeed been a shift, when did we start to say "in New York"?

The OED seems to have examples up to the 19th century e.g. 1849 "The Parliament met at Edinburgh." It says "With proper names of places: particularly used of towns (with many exceptions, such as London, New York, etc.), and that in which the speaker lives (if of any size); (also) of small islands. Cf. on the Isle of Wight, on Inchkeith, at St. Helena, at Malta, at the English Lakes, at the Cape. Formerly used more widely: at Ireland, at London." You'd need a more thorough study to trace the precise use through history; the OED warns "a classification of its uses is very difficult. " — Stuart F, Nov 10 '23 at 09:49
Does this answer your question? Usage of 'at' and 'in' for cities, "At" vs. "in" followed by a city name, "Born in a City" or "Born at a City"?, Correct usage of ‘on’, ‘at’ and ‘in’. — jsw29, Nov 10 '23 at 16:55

"died at New York"

0 Answers0