Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2021 October 3

< Wikipedia:Reference desk‎ | Archives‎ | Language
Language desk
< October 2 << Sep | October | Nov >> Current desk >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


October 3

edit

Cannon vs cannons

edit

What is the correct plural for the word cannon? See, for example, the recent edits at 1812 Overture. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Either one is valid, though Webster says it's "usually" cannon.[1] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I see that 1812 Overture is not tagged with any particular English language variety. For a musical composition/ score the difference between one and more than one cannon might be significant. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Usually" cannon may no longer be true: [2].  --Lambiam 13:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. This might be context dependant? An orchestra could be instrumented with cannon, could it also be equipped? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find "cannons" jarring. I wouldn't go so far as to say it was wrong, but it makes my skin creep. DuncanHill (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I bet you're not the first person to find cannons a trifle jarring. Funny stuff happens in Tennyson. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Twain also used the plural "cannon" in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Maybe it's used less often that way nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think so; I find plural "cannon" jarring or old-fashioned and I would dispute Webster's assertion that it's now "usually" used. I just did a simple Google search for the two-word phrase "cannon were" and it reported about 389,000 hits, while substituting "cannons were" produced about 322,000 hits. Neither one is the usual form, and other online dictionaries I checked agree with that. Which version is more common may depend on the milieu. --184.144.99.72 (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Cannons were" could refer to snooker shots, otherwise "cannon were" rings true. Doug butler (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If age confers respectability, then the plural form "cannons" deserves more respect.[3]  --Lambiam 09:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would this depend on context? For example, the normal plural of "horse" is "horses", but in a military context it is common to use "horse" as a plural or mass noun ("Captain Wossname commanded a force of 200 horse"). The same also applies to "foot" (meaning infantry) and "armour" (meaning tanks or other armoured vehicles). If the same applies here, I would expect that the rule would be to use "cannons" when refering to multiple individual cannons ("there are five cannons on display at the Old Arsenal in Geneva"), but to use "cannon" when referring military units ("the garrison comprised 1000 foot, 200 horse, and 50 cannon"). Iapetus (talk) 09:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to fish as a mass noun against fishes as a plural? Alansplodge (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um, arguably. The edit summary from the IP editor over at 1812 Overture said, "The plural of cannon is cannon, cf. sheep and fish." To which I replied, "As in the miracle of the loaves and the fishes?" The article currently has 5 "cannons" and 17 "cannon", and it's not clear to me which should be which. Does consistency override this mixture? Does it matter that it was written in 1880? Does it matter that the context is an orchestra not for am artillery battalion? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One can say "three fish",[4] or "fish are jumping", so these uses are plural forms of a count noun. A mass noun, as in "fish is an extremely perishable commodity",[5] takes a singular verb form.  --Lambiam 10:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff. Good old IP. But let's not get too distracted. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many early references to a plurality take the form "X pieces of cannon", seen at least as early as 1604.[6] The earliest use of an unambiguously plural "cannon" that I spotted is from 1637.[7] I wonder if it arose as short for "pieces of cannon".  --Lambiam 10:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever form is used for the plural, some will be jarred, and neither can be considered incorrect, historically or otherwise. Although the difference is not one of national varieties, the most reasonable approach may be to follow MOS:ENGVAR, particularly its aspects MOS:ARTCON, which holds that the spelling within a single article must be consistent, and MOS:RETAIN, which holds that the earliest spelling should prevail. Note that the oldest version of the article used the plural "cannons".  --Lambiam 05:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That would follow Wikipedia canon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But is there really a unique Wikipedia canon. Or should that be canons? --T*U (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"More tea, vicar?" Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2021_October_3&oldid=1096458674"