Specieses

Question

Hi,Is there any logic to the plurals of specific species?When are animals countable?In looking at a recent post, I discovered I don't have a clue.Seems like we all agree that "fishes" means multiple species of fish.Fresh water species don't seem to have plurals, but some salt water species do.  Must we memorize the plural of every species?"Salmon/trout/bass/perch are beautiful."   "Sharks/whales/dolphins/octupi are beautiful."A stand of pine/pines/oak/oaks/maple/maplesA school of shark/sharksA herd of buffalo/horses/elk     I give up!  Thanks.

Clive · Accepted Answer

Hi Avangi,

Fortunately for me, I seem to rarely speak or write about fish, trees or animals. I'm a city guy.

I wil, however, offer you the comment that I almost never use the word 'fishes'. I just say 'fish' or 'kinds of fish'. The word 'fishes', however, seems to fascinate, tantalize, trouble and bewildermany English learners on this Forum.

Fresh water species don't seem to have plurals, but some salt water species do. Wow, you've obviously thought about this more deeply than I ever have.

Best wishes, Clive

Avangi · Answer

Thanks for the cheer, Clive!<img class='emoticon' style='Width:19px;Height:19px;' data-delaysrc='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/77.gif' src='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/77.gif' alt='Emotion: happy'/>

Anonymous · Answer

Standard American Grammar, including spelling, has undergone more of a change in the 20/21st centuries than at any other time in history (hyperbole admitted!).
Th exists basically, two (2) "styles" that are accepted as the "bibles" when it comes to these questions here posed.
The first is THE ELEMENTS of STYLE and is rather dogmatic, but after all linguistics, matters tend to be of that nature. The other, THE CHICAGO SCOOL of style.
EXAMPLES:S

Possessive form of nouns ending in "s." Charles's but never 's with reference to biblical persons (ELEMENTS).
Charles' also not used with biblical reference (Chicago).
Pick a style and adhere to it; do not blend styles."!
Recently it has become acceptable to "es" FISH in the plural (Chicago). I find this utterly distasteful and childlike... as in when a small child refers to "fishies"!

Why do we not then throw caution to the wind and start spelling SHEEPS or CACTUSES...
I am not a prude, SAY what you are comfortable with but please do not show a lack of form whem writing the written word.
****, we all have been " caught" saying AIN'T....after all, in earlier versions of the language AMN'T was used and still is in parts of Scotland!

Have fun with language, there would never be a poem if no one "fooled" with words. But please, show good form when writing, it could mean getting a job or not.
As there are always exceptions to the rule I will never be able to justify "we's." That usage is double jeopardy. Not only does that contraction stand for the incorrect "we is" it's totally ludicrous in that there exists a proper contraction " we're (we are) and takes NO effort to use. One is really going out of one's way to use the WEZ thing.... Sound like one is out of breath.
Well, that is my two bits ( that's a quarter to you " you gens").

Specieses

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions