well it just sounds silly
I have seen 3 fishes? it sounds wrong.
I have seen 3 fish ... but its not plural! surely a word has to change when its plural.
this is just ridculas.
2006-11-04 23:53:48 · 37 answers · asked by Anonymous in Education & Reference ➔ Words & Wordplay
aint it amazing how when you ask a question some smart as* just has to be picky and pick up on spelling jeez get a life. anyway hun its fish not fishes totally agree it does sound strange
2006-11-04 23:59:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
To you, maybe, but there is no rule that says the same word can't be used in both the plural and singular senses.
In this case, "fishes" has become OK when you are talking about fish in the counting sense. If you are talking about "fish" in general, or all fish, you use "fish." You can still use "fish" for both.
Or were you fishing for a different answer?
2006-11-04 23:59:35 · answer #2 · answered by thylawyer 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The plural of fish is fish, just like the plural of moose is moose and the plural of sheep is sheep. The singular and the plural can be the same word (although it isn't common). There is no grammatical rule stating the singular and plural forms of a word have to be different.
2006-11-05 05:57:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fish does have a regular plural form, but it differs in meaning from the unmarked plural; fishes refers to several species or other taxonomic types, while fish (plural) is used to describe multiple individual animals: one would say "the order of fishes," but "five fish in an aquarium." The plural fishes is found in the King James Bible, in the parable of the loaves and fishes, for example, and is also sometimes used for rhetorical emphasis, as in phrases like sleep with the fishes.
2006-11-04 23:56:40 · answer #4 · answered by JJ 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Who said the English language always makes sense. The plural of fish is fish.
2006-11-05 00:24:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some nouns spell their singular and plural exactly alike; these are regarded by some linguists as regular plurals. Many of these are the names of animals:
deer
fish (and many individual fish names: cod, mackerel, trout, etc.)
moose
sheep
There is a word "fishes" but it has a different meaning.
2006-11-04 23:58:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Try your theory out with sheep, or deer. There are words in English which do not have a plural form. You've just got to accept it. After all, what is the plural of person? People and there's no logic to that.
2006-11-05 00:45:33 · answer #7 · answered by cymry3jones 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One fish is the same as two fish. Alternatively, one can put them in a group and say, “I saw a school of fish” where the word school is being used to represent many.
2006-11-04 23:57:16 · answer #8 · answered by blackpus88 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's fish.
I have 1 fish to sell, but she has 12 fish to sell.
Ask yourself this. What is the plural of Sheep?
2006-11-05 00:06:45 · answer #9 · answered by Swampy_Bogtrotter 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The words "people" and "persons" are another set of words where one is a generalized plural (people, fish) and one is meant to signify a collective of unique individuals (persons, fishes).
And it really depends on the species.. i cant remember if its.. if they are of the same species you call them "fish" and if they are all mixed you call them "fishes" or the other way around.
2006-11-05 00:05:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A cording to Webster, either is appropriate.
Fish as with deer can be noted in the plural by the same word. (e.g. I saw three deer. -- I saw three fish.)
Fish and dish also share a common plural form. (e.g. There are many varieties of dishes. -- There are many varieties of fishes.)
So as my old religion professor, Dr. Thomas, use to say, "Pay your money and take your choice."
2006-11-05 00:02:26 · answer #11 · answered by Magic One 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋