at a meeting vs in a meeting

[mrwroc]

I wanted to ask here:
https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/threads/173913-at-a-meeting-vs-in-a-meeting
But someone closed the thread.

So the difference between "in a meeting" and "at a meeting" is almost unnoticeable.
Which version is more common? "in a meeting"?

Can I always use one version? For example, can I change:
- Did you get any work done yesterday afternoon?
- No, none at all. I was at a meeting from 1pm until 7pm.

to:

- Did you get any work done yesterday afternoon?
- No, none at all. I was in a meeting from 1pm until 7pm.

 

[emsr2d2]

I wanted to ask a question [STRIKE]here:[/STRIKE] at https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/threads/173913-at-a-meeting-vs-in-a-meeting
but [STRIKE]someone closed[/STRIKE] the thread has been closed.

[STRIKE]So[/STRIKE] Am I right in thinking that the difference between "in a meeting" and "at a meeting" is almost unnoticeable? Which version is more common? Is it "in a meeting"?

Can I always use one version? For example, can I change:
- Did you get any work done yesterday afternoon?
- No, none at all. I was at a meeting from 1pm until 7pm.

to:

- Did you get any work done yesterday afternoon?
- No, none at all. I was in a meeting from 1pm until 7pm.

In that context, yes, you can change it. We rarely say "always" so I won't say that you can always use just one of them.

 

[jutfrank]

I agree with emsr2d2. In this context, both prepositions work fine. In other contexts, the difference in meaning between them would be more apparent.

 

[emsr2d2]

By the way, the reason you couldn't add a post to that thread is that it was from 2012. When a thread hasn't had any new responses for two years (I think), it's automatically closed.

 

[probus]

So the difference between "in a meeting" and "at a meeting" is almost unnoticeable.

I strongly disagree that the difference is "almost unnoticeable" and I don't think anyone said it was. "In a meeting" implies that the meeting is here and currently in progress. "At a meeting" is used if the meeting is elsewhere.

 

[Tdol]

By the way, the reason you couldn't add a post to that thread is that it was from 2012. When a thread hasn't had any new responses for two years (I think), it's automatically closed.

Threads are closed automatically to reduce spam. They can be re-opened.

 

[probus]

And spammers have become increasingly tricky. They've been known to create innocuous threads, leave them dormant for a while, then add spam after a few months.

 

[Tdol]

Fortunately, most spammers using spam software are using a cracked version and haven't read the f-manual. I did and it could be much scarier. If they bought it and understood it, there would be a lot more trouble than ones with the foresight to open a few accounts long before they bother us. And the returns must be diminishing on spam- I never see it in my email now, and we rarely see it here. They try, they die.