I know we generally use in for "city, town and country ". But I am confused about when "the country " follows "the city". Which one should we use?
1) I live in Mumbai in India.
2) I live at Mumbai in India.
-
The country is merely a disambiguator; either at or in may be acceptable in some circumstances. See Usage of 'at' and 'in' for cities and Correct usage of ‘on’, ‘at’ and ‘in’ from a foreigner’s point of view among others.– chosterCommented Jun 28, 2017 at 15:38
-
I live in Mumbai, India.– Ram PillaiCommented Aug 5, 2020 at 13:47
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
I live in Mumbai, India. no need to put other words between country and city.
-
I know that I can write this way. But I want to know what should I do in that case too.– rzd85Commented Jun 28, 2017 at 6:14
-
-
1
-
1It's "in" Mumbai. You could say "I live in Mumbai, which is in India"--one might do that with a small town where the listener or reader might not know the country. Mumbai is well-known, though.– XanneCommented Jun 28, 2017 at 7:48
-
'in' is a point in an area.
'at' is a point to another point.
e.g. I live in the city.
e.g. There is a well in the garden.
e.g. Mom is at home.
e.g. Mom is cooking in the kitchen.
e.g. I work at the airport.
e.g. There is a thief in this airport.
as for me,i think,it should be "i live at mumbai in India" reason being that,Mumbai is in India,so "at" Mumbai ,and Mumbai is "in" India in as much as we can take that short form but we can also take this other form
