And the men that lighted the than could be counted without a slate cannons were soldiers of the King , and marking ; and all the windows of with blue coats who live in round the streets were filled with beautiful tents , that is cloth …
The earliest hit is from 1816:
[
Cobbett’s Political Register - Volume 30 - Page 73
Some are for new towns are rising up and new states are one measure , some for another : some excrowding forward , I hope you will not pect that you will make corn dear again ; forget to build ships and cast cannons ; these are the …
Cannons as a plural was used widely in both England and America in the first half of the 19th century.
I remember reading that in Pinker’s book. But it doesn’t really make sense to me, because rice ends with an /s/ sound while English words that end in a vowel form their plurals by adding a /z/ sound. The plural of rie (/raɪ/) would be pronounced like “rise” (/raɪz/) not “rice” (/raɪs/).
I thought exactly the same. I don’t think the rice->rie backformation is likely in the way pease->pea was. “Pease” sounds like the plural of “pea.” “Rice” does not sound like the plural of “rie.” “Rise,” does. So I don’t think this sort of mis-analysis/mis-parsing is likely to happen, and it’s not really analogous to “pease/pea”.
By the way, the vocalization of a plural s might be customary in standard American or standard British English, but in most forms of Indian English, the s is generally pronounced as spelled, regardless of the preceding sound. Indian English is contributing a lot of neologisms to the language, such as pre-pone. With Indian immigrants commonly present in—at least American—professional settings, I wonder if some of those terms will start bleeding through.
“Dice” is certainly an irregular plural. The OED says it’s because “dice” is perceived as a collective noun rather than a plural.
“As in pence , the plural s retains its original breath sound, probably because these words were not felt as ordinary plurals, but as collective words; compare the original plural truce , where the collective sense has now passed into a singular. … In the newer senses where the plural is not collective, a form /daɪz/ of the ordinary type has arisen; compare the non-collective later plural pennies .”
Some Indian languages, like Hindi, are gendered and some like the Bengali language are not. In the Bengali language, the nouns are not assigned gender, as well as the verbs do not change in accordance with the noun. There is also minimal changing of adjectives for gender in the language.
In my experience, a person whose first language is an Indian genderless language has a tough time picking up a gendered Indian language, but the reverse is not true.
Wonder - if that happens with other languages like Turkish and Finnish (which are also genderless).
I have heard people talk about how speakers of some Indo-European languages have trouble with English he and she but I can’t recall which ones. But gender in English is extremely limited, barely a vestige.
I grew up speaking both Bengali and English and had no problems. Keeping genders straight in French, German, and Italian is a task for me. But I understand that gender in Hindi is even more complicated than in those languages.
Thanks - that makes sense. I grew up speaking Hindi with school friends, Bengali at home, English at school, and a couple of South Indian languages with other family friends - so I do not make a conscious choice switching between genderless and gendered languages. But my parents could never get the gender right.
Since you know so much about languages, do you know if there is any other language which uses the same word for eating and drinking like Bengali.
But Bengali verbs tend to do a lot of work. I would bet that learning a limited number of key verb conjugations would get you farther in Bengali than in most Indo-European languages.
The verb you are talking about, খাওয়া (khaoya) is the verb in a lot of different idioms. It could be used to translate all these English phrases:
Eat an apple.
Drink water.
Smoke a cigarette
Chew gum.
Trip or stumble.
Accept a bribe.
Deplete funds. Generally, use up or expend something.
Be kissed or embraced.
Be bitten.
Be slapped.
In many contexts it can be synonymous with পাওয়া (paoya) in the sense of to get or receive.
I’m idly speculation that “cannon” for the plural indicates a collective rather than lots of individual guns - just as you might read a reference to “horse” (in an account of a battle) meaning a whole cavalry regiment or two.
On one hand, the Saxon genitive plural does not have an “s”; non-Old English nouns do not decline like that anyway, but we do see “a 30-year-old man” or “he is five foot nine”. On the other hand, “cannon” is a French word that appears in middle English.
Seems that all measurements were used that way until recently, and a few hold-outs that want to sound like a Connecticut Yankee and talk about something being 4 mile down the road.
