is there such a word as fishes?

Question

my dad said " there are lots of fishes in the pond "?
but should he of said "there are lots of fish in the pond"?
Am i right? Or is my dad right?

Could i say "there are fishers in the pond"?

Answer 1

Those who say "fishes" is always archaic and never correct are quite mistaken.

Both "fish" and "fishes" are proper plural forms, BUT they are NOT interchangeable.

"A group of fish of the same species are called fish. Two or more species of fish are called 'fishes'."

Actually, I believe it is ALWAYS correct to use "fish" for a plural, without regard to whether they are all of the same species or not. But "fishes" MUST refer to different species. (So if your dad was referring the VARIETY of them, he used to correct form.)

Note that this is a more recent distinction. The KJV Bible (1611) speaks of "five loaves and two fishes" and is not referring to different species of fish.

http://www.amonline.net.au/fishes/what/fish.htm
http://crofsblogs.typepad.com/english/2005/02/fish_or_fishes.html

Answer 2

1. Yes, fishes is a real word.

2. If the fish(es) were all of the same species then yes, otherwise no.

3. Again, depends if there was a variety in species, if so your dad was right, otherwise you were.

4. Yes, you could say that there are fishers in the pond if there are, although it is more likely they will be in a boat.

Answer 3

Don't let people confuse you with fish's, the possesive form, and fish, or--if you insist--fishes, the plural form. My 1964 edition of the OED gives no example of "fishes' as a plural. It does say that " pl. is often 'fish.'"

As for the biblical quotations, that could be considered as poetic license, or simply archaic use.

Also, remember how long ago the Bible was written/translated into English. Language is constantly evolving. For example, we no longer speak or write in the way people did in Shakespeare's time. If we did, then using double negatives would still be acceptable in Standard English.

There are also some differences in how the English language is used in the U.S. A. (American English-A.E.) and in other English speaking countries.(B.E.-British English.)

Pedantically speaking, you are correct. "Fishes" has only recently sneaked, or should I say 'snuck'? :-{ , back into proper English. Would your dad say, "I'm going to the store to by some fishes for dinner?" I doubt it. He would say "fish." He would, however, buy some "eggs."

Similarly, "dove" instead of "dived," is being heard more often. I suspect that's because it gets confused with "drove" -not drived.

Although some people are careless about word use, I think you are to be congratulated for caring. And, please, don't let anyone tell you that "sheeps" or
"sheep's" (the possessive) is the plural of sheep.

(It's should 'have' said, not should 'of.')

Answer 4

The plural for Fish is Fish no such word a Fishes

Answer 5

You are both right...

fish
n. pl. fish or fish·es
Any of numerous cold-blooded aquatic vertebrates of the superclass Pisces, characteristically having fins, gills, and a streamlined body and including specifically:
Any of the class Osteichthyes, having a bony skeleton.
Any of the class Chondrichthyes, having a cartilaginous skeleton and including the sharks, rays, and skates.
The flesh of such animals used as food.
Any of various primitive aquatic vertebrates of the class Cyclostomata, lacking jaws and including the lampreys and hagfishes.
Any of various unrelated aquatic animals, such as a jellyfish, cuttlefish, or crayfish.
Informal. A person, especially one considered deficient in something: a poor fish.

Answer 6

Fish: Used when describing one or many of one species of fish. Ex1: In my aquarium I have one clown fish.
Ex2: In my aquarium I have many clown fish.

Fishes: Used when referring to a group of different species of fish.
Ex: There are lots of fishes in the pond.

Answer 7

if there is more than one type of fish, it's fishes. if there is only one type of fish, but many, it's still fish.

rainbow fish and clown fish = 2 fishes
rainbow fish and rainbow fish = 2 fish

** just like what eric stated

Answer 8

Fishes as the plural of fish is not technically incorrect, but it is quite archaic - the only place I can think of seeing it offhand is in the Bible. The modern-day accepted plural is fish (like sheep).

Answer 9

You are correct.

Same with Mooses/Moose, mouses/mice, gooses/geese, et al. It is just the customary way of describing certain animals in plural form.

There are exceptions.

Three Dog Night: "Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea..."

Answer 10

The use of the word "fishes" goes back to biblical times.
There are several references to the "fishes in the seas".

So you and your Dad are right.