0
Mindie Posted 23 years ago
Grammar
Plural
Question for you.
I am a mother tongue english teacher in Italy and I used to work for my sister in law. I recently went into parntership with a friend.
My question is my sister in law that you cannot plural FISH. I have used the word fishes before. Am I incorrect in using FISHES?
My sister in law said it remains FISH for one or more then one.
HELP ME !!!! I am confused.
Thanks
I am a mother tongue english teacher in Italy and I used to work for my sister in law. I recently went into parntership with a friend.
My question is my sister in law that you cannot plural FISH. I have used the word fishes before. Am I incorrect in using FISHES?
My sister in law said it remains FISH for one or more then one.
HELP ME !!!! I am confused.
Thanks
Top answer
It does indeed remain "fish" in the plural. One fish, two fish, three fish... Some people say "fishes," but that is because they are wrong.
- It does indeed remain "fish" in the plural.
- One fish, two fish, three fish...
- Some people say "fishes," but that is because they are wrong.
- If you look it up in some dictionaries, it may give "fishes" as an alternate plural form for "fish," but that is only because many dictionaries are too wussy to differentiate between an evolving language phenomenon and a commonly made mistake.
- So don't listen to them.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
36 Answers
0
It does indeed remain "fish" in the plural. One fish, two fish, three fish...
Some people say "fishes," but that is because they are wrong. If you look it up in some dictionaries, it may give "fishes" as an alternate plural form for "fish," but that is only because many dictionaries are too wussy to differentiate between an evolving language phenomenon and a commonly made mistake. So don't l
Some people say "fishes," but that is because they are wrong. If you look it up in some dictionaries, it may give "fishes" as an alternate plural form for "fish," but that is only because many dictionaries are too wussy to differentiate between an evolving language phenomenon and a commonly made mistake. So don't l
00
Oh, that is also new to me - I was always told "fish" has two plurals: fish and fishes!
Plural "fishes" would be used when you can count them, e.g.: two fishes, ten fishes; and plural "fish" would be used when you just have an undefinite amount of fish, like e.g.: lots of fish, hundreds of fish, dozens of fish.
Thank you for clearing that up tho, I'll have to correct my dictionary
Plural "fishes" would be used when you can count them, e.g.: two fishes, ten fishes; and plural "fish" would be used when you just have an undefinite amount of fish, like e.g.: lots of fish, hundreds of fish, dozens of fish.
Thank you for clearing that up tho, I'll have to correct my dictionary
00
That's right Kitkattail, Plural of 'fish' is 'fish'.
It seems to appear every now and then though it's not correct. It even appeared in a popular quite a few years ago about 'all the fishes in the deep blue sea' I think it was called 'joy to the world' or something like that.
They frequently distort the grammar and pronunciation in songs in order to fit in with the beat or the rhythm.
It seems to appear every now and then though it's not correct. It even appeared in a popular quite a few years ago about 'all the fishes in the deep blue sea' I think it was called 'joy to the world' or something like that.
They frequently distort the grammar and pronunciation in songs in order to fit in with the beat or the rhythm.
00
After fishing around on this fishy subject I found that both my Oxford dictionaries are either wrong, or you can indeed choose either fish or fishes. Personally I prefer lamb(s).
00
0
0
I use the A.S. Hornby's "Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English" which was recommended to me by a good friend and I've to say it is a real good one in my opinion - and also a Langenscheidt pocket dictionary for translations ***
Both Hornby and Langenscheidt give both plural forms fish and fishes.
Maybe this is just because of the fact that the dictionaries want to
Both Hornby and Langenscheidt give both plural forms fish and fishes.
Maybe this is just because of the fact that the dictionaries want to
00
fishes should only be used as a very inclusive collective term, referring to the vast numbers of swimming creatures in the earth's waters AND when there is a desire to include the many varities as well.
ex- fisherman A caught 100 fish, including some cod, some tuna, some x, some y, and some z.
(it is the number that he caught that is important - the naming of the kinds are just s
ex- fisherman A caught 100 fish, including some cod, some tuna, some x, some y, and some z.
(it is the number that he caught that is important - the naming of the kinds are just s
00
Oh, okay, I hadn't thought about it in terms of species. That makes sense.
00
Related Questions