born at Skegness

[birdeen's call]

This article says Elizabeth Allan "was born at Skegness". Why not "in Skegness"? It would be "in London" I think. Also, the article says she died at Hove. Is there a way to tell which prepostition is right?

 

[5jj]

'In' is the natural preposition..

We normally use 'at' as in, "I'll meet you at Frankfurt", only if we are thinking of an airport, or possibly railway station.

 

[birdeen's call]

'In' is the natural preposition..

We normally use 'at' as in, "I'll meet you at Frankfurt", only if we are thinking of an airport, or possibly railway station.

Do the sentences in the article seem non-native?

 

[5jj]

Apart from that preposition they seem native to me.

 

[birdeen's call]

Apart from that preposition they seem native to me.

It bothers me. Why would a native speaker use an unnatural preposition twice in an article? Could it be dialectal?

 

[TheParser]

This article says Elizabeth Allan "was born at Skegness". Why not "in Skegness"? It would be "in London" I think. Also, the article says she died at Hove. Is there a way to tell which prepostition is right?

*** NOT A TEACHER ***


(1) "Socrates, the son of Sophroniscus, was born at Alopece."

"At connects Alopece with the verb was born, and shows the relation between them."

Source: William Fowler Chauncey. Common School Grammar. Published in 1870. Google Books.

(2) "A Croatian poet, born at Grabonitza."

"He was born at Gorham, Me., ..." [ME = the state of Maine]

Source: Messers. Gilman, Peck, and Colby. The New International Encyclopedia.
Published in 1903. Google books.

(3) "Thomas Hammerken, born at Kempen near Dusseldorf."

Source: Messrs. Whitney and Smith. The Century Dictionary. Published in 1897. Google books.

*** Apparently "born at" was common in older English.