+0
What is the difference between the two? Should we say: I arrived in Lisbon or I arrived at Lisbon?
Thank you!
1 2 3 4 5
Comments 
I arrived in Lison would be correct. You put "in" before cities. for e.g. in New York, in Paris, in Oslo, etc.

But, if you're talking about the station, for e.g. I arrived at Lison (Here, you're talking about the Lisbon station), you can use "at".

- I hope I'm right Emotion: smile
Than you! Emotion: smile
Kuljc03I arrived in Lison would be correct. You put "in" before cities. for e.g. in New York, in Paris, in Oslo, etc.

But, if you're talking about the station, for e.g. I arrived at Lison (Here, you're talking about the Lisbon station), you can use "at".

- I hope I'm right Emotion: smile

Yes, you're quite right: you arrive in a city, but at a place.
Only for your information:

You arrive in a big place.( Beijing, New York)

You arrive at a small place.(airport, trian station..)
As below, you normally use "at" when the name of a city stands for a station, airport, port, a head office of a company, a meeting place that is familiar to all speakers in the conversation, etc.
Isn't it also possible to use the preposition ON? In for instance;

When I arrived on the scene, it was all over.

Is this wrong? Jay
Hello Jay

Yes, you are quite right. In English they say "arrive on the scene" as well as "arrive at the scene". They use both "on" and "at" also for "the island". In the case of "the coast", they mostly say "arrived on the coast". "Arrive over" is also possible in a context like "Lindbergh arrived over Paris at about 10 PM local time".

paco

Okay I have never heard the one with over before. I cannot remember who Lindbergh was. But wasn't he one of the first ever to fly?

Jay
Show more