- Who did she come?
It is very important to check whether the verb to come is a transitive verb (which doesn't require a preposition) or intransitive verb (which does require a preposition). For example, if you change the interrogative sentence to a declarative one, it will be
She came who.
It doesn't make any sense. It should be
She came with whom.
Therefore, you need the preposition with in the sentence. When "whom" is placed at the beginning as an interrogative pronoun, "who" is more broadly used than "whom".
- How long did they stay [for]? Where did Jack go [to]?
You need to understand that "how long" and "where" are interrogative adverbs, not interrogative pronouns. Therefore, you don't need to use the prepositions. The same rule applies to "home" as in
He went home. *He went to home
You don't need to use "to" in the second sentence above as "home" is an adverb. If you replace home with "where", it would be easier to understand how it works.
He went where. Where did he go?
- When did you call me?
"When" is an interrogative adverb which doesn't require a preposition.
You need to differentiate interrogative pronouns such as who, which, what, etc. from interrogative adverbs such as how long, when, where, how, etc.
From time to time, you can hear some native English speakers ask "Where are you at?" or "Where are you going to?" The prepositions at and to are not absolutely necessary, however, they could be used. You can read “Where are you now at?” — grammatically correct? and is “Where are you going to?” correct to understand how they work. They are a few exceptions to the rule.
"This appears to be photograph of wounded solders in a hospital. I am going to go ahead and call it as being by Mathew Brady."
Semantic parse:
This usage is spoken: "I'm going to go ahead and call it as being x".
To call something is sports' lingo for what a referee does during a game: to call a foul or to call a play. For example. It has come to mean: to say something about something, to define it.
When looking at a picture or listening to something wherethe person who took the picture or recorded the music or speech, respectively, is not clear, it would be standard AmE spoken English to say: I'm going to call it as being by [some photographer or painter or musician].
This would be used for anything where identifying a person is the issue.
Also, very used: I'm going to call it as I see it. You did steal the money. [Let's say you are having an argument, and you say you did not do something bad. The other person can say that sentence to you.]
Who took the picture? Who is the photography by? Who is the man in the photo? Who is the person recording the message or music?
"I'm going to call it as being John [who took the picture OR made the recording OR who is in the picture].
In this type of case, as being is necessary.
- I'm going to go ahead and call it as being x"
Go ahead implies there has been hesitation until that point in time.
"As being x" is in line with : x is identified as being [some person or thing].
Best Answer
I have heard both and I don't think either is incorrect. They both indicate an estimate of time, but to me one sounds loose than the other. When speaking about future events you may have an approximate time in mind or no set time at all, but when talking about a past event there is always a specific time even though you may not know what time that was.
An example of a future event:
This sounds very loose to me. 7:30 is "around 7pm" but is equally close to 8pm. Hearing this would make me think the speaker has not thought too hard about time that they might arrive.
This sounds more specific to me. Saying you will arrive "at around" a particular time sounds to me like the speaker has a specific estimate in mind but is allowing a little slippage either way.
When referring to a past event though, it seems more common to use "at" because this acknowledges that something happened at a particular time, you just do not know exactly when. This is commonly used in news reports, for example:
I don't think there is a right or wrong, both are probably idiomatic and used to mean the same thing, but certainly, with past events I would take note of the way it used in reporting news as they tend to observe consistent rules of grammar.