[General] The plural of fish?

[Dawood Usmani]

:-D

 

[konungursvia]

You can use "fish" for fish of one kind, or "fishes" for multiple species. This dichotomy is not universal.

 

[Irshad Alam]

You can use "fish" for fish of one kind, or "fishes" for multiple species. This dichotomy is not universal.

I think the same rule goes with 'people'. Am I right?

 

[konungursvia]

I think so, yes.

 

[moon14]

You can use "fish" for fish of one kind, or "fishes" for multiple species. This dichotomy is not universal.

i think (fish) . cause i studied the plural and single of fish is fish ,and that is in any situation

 

[Raymott]

i think (fish) . cause i studied the plural and single of fish is fish ,and that is in any situation

Then I guess a native speaker should state plainly that fish has two plural forms: 'fish' and 'fishes', and that they are normally used in different contexts. 'Fish' is the most common, and would pass in almost all situations.

 

[chimsm]

From my point of view, there are 2 cases,
the first one is: "fish" is a countable noun so its plural form is "fishes".
the rest is: "fish" is a uncountable noun so, there isn't plural form.

I really think that the appropriate answer to this poll is the second choice- FISHES.

 

[konungursvia]

What about sheep?

 

[Dawood Usmani]

What about sheep?

Only one form is possible for both singular and plural unlike fish. Fish has two forms; fish and fishes.

 

[Dawood Usmani]

How about 'news'? Is it singular or plural?

 

[Raymott]

What about sheep?

What about them?
Google Image Result for http://www.ttsw.com/HenrysSheep/PlayBillSheep.gif

 

[Muhammad Ejaz]

What about them?
Google Image Result for http://www.ttsw.com/HenrysSheep/PlayBillSheep.gif

What do you mean sir? I don't understand. Could you please explain?
Ejaz

 

[Raymott]

What do you mean sir? I don't understand. Could you please explain?
Ejaz

In English, when someone simply says "What about X?" which the hearer cannot fit into the current conversation, they often say, "What about X?"
(different intonation).
Admittedly they don't normally post a jpg of X. By doing that, I have taking some licence in bending the normal rules of discourse. There is no important communicative value in the link I posted.

 

[mamlady]

hi ... in the end i want to know what is the right thing ???
fish or fishes
????
:?:

 

[julianna]

it is 'fish'

 

[Raymott]

hi ... in the end i want to know what is the right thing ???
fish or fishes
????
:?:

Why not read what English native speakers have said. No-one is trying to trick you (well maybe julianna is, or she might just be guessing).

 

[merritt35]

If you are talking about how many fish you bought to prepare for dinner tonight, you would be correct to say that you had purchased three fish. On the other hand, if you were discussing the many types of fishes there are in the oceans of the planet, then fishes would be correct.

 

[true will]

we can answer to this ques. Firsrly, we look to the noun whether countable or uncountable.
Then we can decide if the word is countable
so we can put it in plural form ( word + -s, -es etc. )

Generally, food is uncountable form . Therefoe, the plural of fish is fish .

Hope to got it. :-D

 

[Dawood Usmani]

we can answer to this ques. Firsrly, we look to the noun whether countable or uncountable.
Then we can decide if the word is countable
so we can put it in plural form ( word + -s, -es etc. )

Generally, food is uncountable form . Therefoe, the plural of fish is fish .

Hope to got it. :-D

Isn't chicken a food too? Why, then, do you make it plural?:shock:

 

[Raymott]

Isn't chicken a food too? Why, then, do you make it plural?:shock:

I thought fish and chickens were animals, and it was only when you ate them they were food.
So by True Will's rule, vegetarians should use "fishes" and "sheeps", while meat eaters should say "fish" and "sheep". :-D
But perhaps there is something salvageable in his theory. We do talk about "chicken" and so forth when we're referring to food.