This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Another editor requested, but did not start this discussion, so I'll have to do so. Does it make more sense to describe Roman gentes in or at Rome? This is not really a matter of classics, but one of English grammar—although I will briefly point out that in Reading Latin, the course by Peter V. Jones and Keith C. Sidwell, the locative case is specifically translated as "at", not "in". The meaning of in is fairly clear: it means inside, within, limited by the boundaries of a place or thing; surrounded by it. At is a more general expression of physical relationship: it means in, near, around, in the vicinity of a place or thing, without spatial limitation. The Oxford English Dictionary has this to say about at: "2. With proper names of places: Particularly used of all towns, except [London], and that in which the speaker dwells (if of any size), also of small and distant islands or parts of the world." The note following indicates that at London was also used at earlier times. My Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary has a shorter discussion to similar effect, although strangely the Third New International Dictionary does not seem to.
If speaking of something that is definitely located within the boundaries of Rome—or anywhere else—say, the Colosseum, then either in or at Rome would be equally correct. However, when speaking of something that lies beyond the boundaries of the place named, in is no longer an accurate description—say, for example, the Campus Martius before it was enclosed within the city walls. It is equally inaccurate to speak of movable things that are only vaguely and impermanently located at a particular place as being in it, as though they were defined and limited by that spatial relationship.
In this article, and all of the others like it, we are speaking of families that existed, or potentially existed, across centuries, with many individuals coming and going—perhaps originating in cities or towns that were not originally Roman, but came under Roman control during the Samnite Wars, or the Punic Wars, or in Imperial times—or migrating outward to country estates and colonies planted throughout the Empire. There is no particularly good reason to describe them as being "within" Rome, as though they could not live beyond the city walls or stray outside its boundaries without ceasing to be part of a gens. For this purpose, at better conveys the relationship of a gens to the city. Loosely speaking, "Rome" can be and frequently used to refer to the Roman Empire as a whole—but in this case, it seems to me that in still tends to imply the city of Rome, and so is not as good a fit.
I've said that this usage is venerable particularly with reference to Rome, and so it is—it's not easy to open random books and search for examples of unimportant phrases, but fortunately browser searches can do that with online materials. I did spot a few other places so mentioned while gathering these, and I didn't try to account for all of the examples; these are simply the first works that I was able to think of and search quickly.
But this usage is not restricted to classics; another example that comes to mind is in the official forms used to record births, marriages, and deaths in various jurisdictions: from a 1967 marriage record of Mason County, West Virginia: "I, the undersigned by virtue of the foregoing license, and being duly authorized by law to celebrate marriages, do hereby certify that on the (blank) day of (blank), 19 (blank), at (blank) in the county of (blank), in the state of West Virginia, I joined together in matrimony..." Or from Jasper County, Missouri, 1959: "This is to certify that the undersigned (blank) did, at (blank), in said county, on the (blank) day..." Many more examples over much of the English-speaking world could be found with enough time to search; these are just what were quick to hand.
I have neither the time nor the patience to attempt a general survey of the entire body of written English—so I hope the few examples I was able to come up with in just a few minutes will make clear that there has never been any logical or grammatical objection to using at with the proper names of cities or towns—and when that more accurately conveys the intended meaning of "in, around, or in the vicinity of" a particular place, as opposed to "inside, within the boundaries of" that place, then there is no good reason for replacing it simply because one is more accustomed to using in, without reference to the word's precise meaning. Even if one contended that either preposition could do equally well, there is no productive value in going around correcting one to the other—effectively substituting one person's personal preference for another's without any meaningful effect. But I think that at is more accurate, and thus more appropriate, for the general location of a group of people over the course of centuries. P Aculeius ( talk) 21:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Another editor requested, but did not start this discussion, so I'll have to do so. Does it make more sense to describe Roman gentes in or at Rome? This is not really a matter of classics, but one of English grammar—although I will briefly point out that in Reading Latin, the course by Peter V. Jones and Keith C. Sidwell, the locative case is specifically translated as "at", not "in". The meaning of in is fairly clear: it means inside, within, limited by the boundaries of a place or thing; surrounded by it. At is a more general expression of physical relationship: it means in, near, around, in the vicinity of a place or thing, without spatial limitation. The Oxford English Dictionary has this to say about at: "2. With proper names of places: Particularly used of all towns, except [London], and that in which the speaker dwells (if of any size), also of small and distant islands or parts of the world." The note following indicates that at London was also used at earlier times. My Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary has a shorter discussion to similar effect, although strangely the Third New International Dictionary does not seem to.
If speaking of something that is definitely located within the boundaries of Rome—or anywhere else—say, the Colosseum, then either in or at Rome would be equally correct. However, when speaking of something that lies beyond the boundaries of the place named, in is no longer an accurate description—say, for example, the Campus Martius before it was enclosed within the city walls. It is equally inaccurate to speak of movable things that are only vaguely and impermanently located at a particular place as being in it, as though they were defined and limited by that spatial relationship.
In this article, and all of the others like it, we are speaking of families that existed, or potentially existed, across centuries, with many individuals coming and going—perhaps originating in cities or towns that were not originally Roman, but came under Roman control during the Samnite Wars, or the Punic Wars, or in Imperial times—or migrating outward to country estates and colonies planted throughout the Empire. There is no particularly good reason to describe them as being "within" Rome, as though they could not live beyond the city walls or stray outside its boundaries without ceasing to be part of a gens. For this purpose, at better conveys the relationship of a gens to the city. Loosely speaking, "Rome" can be and frequently used to refer to the Roman Empire as a whole—but in this case, it seems to me that in still tends to imply the city of Rome, and so is not as good a fit.
I've said that this usage is venerable particularly with reference to Rome, and so it is—it's not easy to open random books and search for examples of unimportant phrases, but fortunately browser searches can do that with online materials. I did spot a few other places so mentioned while gathering these, and I didn't try to account for all of the examples; these are simply the first works that I was able to think of and search quickly.
But this usage is not restricted to classics; another example that comes to mind is in the official forms used to record births, marriages, and deaths in various jurisdictions: from a 1967 marriage record of Mason County, West Virginia: "I, the undersigned by virtue of the foregoing license, and being duly authorized by law to celebrate marriages, do hereby certify that on the (blank) day of (blank), 19 (blank), at (blank) in the county of (blank), in the state of West Virginia, I joined together in matrimony..." Or from Jasper County, Missouri, 1959: "This is to certify that the undersigned (blank) did, at (blank), in said county, on the (blank) day..." Many more examples over much of the English-speaking world could be found with enough time to search; these are just what were quick to hand.
I have neither the time nor the patience to attempt a general survey of the entire body of written English—so I hope the few examples I was able to come up with in just a few minutes will make clear that there has never been any logical or grammatical objection to using at with the proper names of cities or towns—and when that more accurately conveys the intended meaning of "in, around, or in the vicinity of" a particular place, as opposed to "inside, within the boundaries of" that place, then there is no good reason for replacing it simply because one is more accustomed to using in, without reference to the word's precise meaning. Even if one contended that either preposition could do equally well, there is no productive value in going around correcting one to the other—effectively substituting one person's personal preference for another's without any meaningful effect. But I think that at is more accurate, and thus more appropriate, for the general location of a group of people over the course of centuries. P Aculeius ( talk) 21:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)