Nothing to be eat ??

[skylee]

As I said on the "What are you reading" thread I am reading (re-reading, actually) Jane Austen's Persuasion. The book I have is a Penguin Classics. And I have a question. Take a look at this picture ->

I wrote that question mark the first time I read it. My question is whether "nothing to be eat" is acceptable (or was acceptable at that time) or it is simply an error. I have read some on-line version (Gutenberg for example) and it is "nothing to eat". I have no problem with "stopt" or "teaze" but I find this strange.

One more question. How do you address your father's cousin? Is he your uncle or your cousin? In this book Charles No. 1 and Charles No. 2 are cousins (their mothers are sisters). Walter is Charles No.1's son. How should Walter call Charles No. 2?

[wai ming]

I'm no expert on the matter, but if it had read "There being nothing to be eaten", it would be more acceptable, in my opinion. It certainly sounds strange as "There being nothing to be eat", even for the style of language used at that time.

Unfortunately I've never read Persuasion, so I can't comment on any other versions

[Nibble]

I think it's a typo. It should be either "There being nothing to be eaten" or "There being nothing to eat," and the latter sounds much more natural to me.