I'm reading an almanac and reading through the various presidents, and I noticed that for a few of the presidents, the location where they were born says 'at' instead of 'in.' Like it says Martin Van Buren was born at Kinderhook, New York and George Washington born at Wakefield, Westmoreland County, Virginia. I think I've noticed some British cities that say it like that. I thought maybe certain old cities are said that way. It stops with William Henry Harrison.
So what's the deal?
Posts: 6432 | Location: Grayson, Georgia, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
In Colonial US, and for a long time after, people in the US were born at home, and, at that time, most people didn't actually live inside city limits, but near a city. Many birth records, even today, give a county rather than a city location as place of birth. Note that Kennedy was the first US President born in a hospital.
That is what I think explains the situation.
Posts: 16773 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
So 'at' means that he was born near Kinderhook? Is that way of using the word archaic? Because there are some later presidents where it uses 'near.' Maybe they're using whatever word was used at the time?
Posts: 6432 | Location: Grayson, Georgia, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
I don't know, Justin. Language usage changes much more often that we realize. Cool can mean hot, and that dates from the 1930s or a bit later. Bad can mean good. "I could care less" generally means "I couldn't care less." Going back farther, "girl" once meant boys as well as girls. "Nice" wasn't so nice, and "homely" was a compliment. Language, and usage, evolve. (Apologies to the guy now posting who doesn't understand the word "evolution)
Even writing has changed since colonial times. I'm sure you've noticed how what you and I see as a lower case "f" is actually an "s" in cursive script of that time. Below is George Washington's signature.
Posts: 16773 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Well,for example, I was born at Cambridge not in Cambridge! I was born within the city limits: I do not mean by 'at' that I was born near the city. That's how some British people speak of the place of birth Some people here might say 'born in Cambridge' but 'at' is common.(We might say, too, that someone works at a local factory. They work inside it, not near it, but they are said to be 'at', not 'in', it).
Interesting, Fred. We say we were born in at certain city, generally, but at a certain hospital. We also work at a specific location, but, of course, in a certain industry.*
*Unless, of course, a male sells or designs women's underwear. Then he generally does not say, "I'm in women's underwear."
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 16773 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Ah, I see, Fred. The colonists must've brought it over with them and it stayed around a few decades.
Haha, of course, Dorian.
I've never thought of "I could care less" as actually accepted. I thought it was just a common misunderstanding that people don't immediately realize doesn't make sense. But I guess we've become so used to it that it has become pretty accepted.
Posts: 6432 | Location: Grayson, Georgia, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by jusork: Ah, I see, Fred. The colonists must've brought it over with them and it stayed around a few decades.
They brought a lot more than that.In vocabulary,we still say 'fortnight' for 'two weeks'.In some parts of Britain you may hear 'sennight' for 'week', too. We still say 'nil' for 'nothing', 'no score' or 'zero': Did you get anything out of the meeting? Absolutely nil!' or ' The share is showing a nil return' yet 'nil' is a word you find so quaint in everyday speech that you think an American soccer commentator affected if he uses it.
In grammar, 'shall' for 'will' is very common in current speech here,a usage with its own rules. We say 'one' and 'oneself' for 'I' or 'me' in some contexts.Some of our most common dialects, spoken by millions, retain 'thee','thy' and 'thou'. We say 'he protested against the action' not 'he protested the action' and 'he spoke on Thursday' not 'he spoke Thursday' (which has Thursday as a language, like French ) and so on.
Some or all of these are words or forms which have been changed or lost in America.
Reading examples of 'at' and 'in', it's no wonder that foreigners find English , in any form, difficult !
'He's at work in Cambridge at the factory' 'Really? Which factory does he work in?' 'At the one in Regent Street'
Actually, I think "I could care less" is not as bad as it appears. If the emphasis is on the word "COULD" it can suggest "of course it is possible that I could care less, but not very likely".No??
I did a couple of international conferences oh so many years ago with someone who'd recently retired from a job qs senior reviser/translator with the United Nations. He was first based over in the US (New York), then Geneva. He died 15 years ago, a fact that's irrelevant to this particular thread, but he was a friend of mine and, well, I want to record the fact. His name was Jack. Jack it was who told me that UN usage states that use of the preposition "in" before a city name is used of only half a dozen places within the UN - in all other cases you have to say "at". "in New York", "in Paris", "in London" "in Tokyo" - all of these are fine for it depends upon city size, but "at Memphis", "at Birmingham" and "at Cambridge (even at Carlisle") are the acceptable forms. Interesting, isnt it? Especially when you google "the United Nations Office at Geneva", like what I've just done
Posts: 748 | Location: Paris | Registered: 04-28-03
Anyone who has studied languages knows that prepositions are a pain in the butt (at the butt?). Every language uses its own system, and often, no matter how fluent somone is in a foreign language, he reverts back to his own for a preposition.
Ah yes, the preopsitions. Intersting though, isn't it, that the UN precribed such stringesnt rules for its translators, draftsmen and précis-writers? "In' and "at" are meaningful afer all, are they?
Posts: 748 | Location: Paris | Registered: 04-28-03
Colin, Please don't take offence here, but for someone as clearly erudite and articulate as yourself, your above post seems to have more than the usual number of spelling errors.
Are you typing from 'at' or 'in' Fred's wine cellar in France..and if so, why weren't Ritz and I invited?
Originally posted by dance girl: Colin, .... Are you typing from 'at' or 'in' Fred's wine cellar in France..and if so, why weren't Ritz and I invited?
Colin may be using the wrong keyboard . There's both a French and a British one at Antibes. Has he been at the wine? Is he in drink? Wait until I get back. Can't go upsetting les domestiques
As the village of Kinderhook was not incorporated till 1838 it might well be that "at" was used as Kinderhook was a "site" as opposed to a town or village in 1782. Just a thought.
Some people here might say 'born in Cambridge' but 'at' is common.(We might say, too, that someone works at a local factory. They work inside it, not near it, but they are said to be 'at', not 'in', it).
) and so on.
