Fish or Fishes? English Ignorance
I mean this in the least offensive way possible:
I am very aggravated with the way the English language changed. My mom and various other adults say that when they were in school, it was “fish” not “fishes”. My mom taught me “fish” for multiple amounts of fish species. Whenever I write “fish” for more than one fish in school for a paper, I get points taken off. It sounds ignorant when I hear someone say “fishes”……since WHEN was “fishes” a word.
I want to know what you think about the difference in these words:
Fish
or
Fishes
15 Answers
I think it's a generation thing; I was taught the same as you. Fishes, however, is now quite accepted as general usage and can be found in the dictionary as a proper word. Is it then not possible that the ignorant party is the one marking your school papers?
since WHEN was “fishes” a word
Since at least 1970 -- at least according to the oldest copy of Webster's Dictionary that I have lying around. If you had access to the OED (I used to but have since let my subscription lapse) you might be able to get a more definitive answer as to when this usage was introduced into the English language, but if it was in the dictionary in 1970, I am pretty sure that it goes back further.
When you are making a distinction between the different kinds, species, varieties, etc then fishes is the appropriate term to use. It should be noted that the -es ending can be substituted by including the category phrase. That is to say that the term "fishes" is equivalent to terms such as "species/types/kinds/etc of fish." For example:
• There are nearly 100 known parasites of Alaskan fishes
• There are nearly 100 known parasites of the various species of Alaskan fish
The two examples above make a distinction between the fact that multiple species are effected, and does not imply that all fish species are affected equally by each and every parasite
• There are nearly 100 known parasites which affect Alaskan fish.
In this example, on the other hand, the use of the plural "fish" here implies that each and every fish (regardless of species) indigenous to the waters of Alaska is affected by the entire scope of parasitic species found in those waters. That is to say that it lumps all such fish into the same collective whole. This absence of distinction of species can be seen in the following example as well:
• We caught a bunch of fish.
• We caught several fishes.
In the first example above, there is only a reference to the total number of fish caught; whereas, in the second example, the number alluded to is in regards to the the number of different types of species.
Marianne said:
Fish noun, plural (especially collectively) = fish
And this is completely correct, when you are referring to fish as a collective whole, you would use the term fish; however, when you need to make the distinction between the number of species/types of fish then you would use the term fishes. Of course, as most people don't go about speaking about the number of species or types of fish (outside of visiting an aquarium of course, or perhaps in reference to some large scale disaster as we have seen recently), so the use of fishes is often avoided in favor of similar expressions using an expression containing a prepositional phrase, i.e. "species of fish"
Having studied a bit of Marine Biology in school, albeit years ago, I can tell you that the common terminology in this context is "fishes" and not "fish" (unless, of course, accompanied by an appropriate prepositional phrase as described above). This can be verified by taking a look at the following links which also demonstrate that this terminology has been in use since at least 1901 (see first link)
A revised list of the fishes of Ohio
The fishes of northern and central Veracruz, Mexico
Parasites of the fishes of Alaska and surrounding waters
Here are a few other sources that you might want to cross-check which contend that at the present date, this usage is still correct.
Same thing for "deer" -- one word for 1 deer, or multiple deer, there is no "deers", which I sometimes hear, and it makes blood shoot out of my eyes.
Terminology: "fish" vs. "fishes"
Both "fish" and "fishes" are acceptable plurals, and both forms are common. For example, the later usage can be found throughout Nelson's Fishes of the World, 3rd Edition (1994), and within the Guidelines for Use of Fishes in Field Research (1988) by the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, the American Fisheries Society, and the American Institute of Fisheries Research Biologists. Examples of the use of fish as the plural are quite common in popular literature. Although both plural forms are acceptable, a common preference among biologists is to use the term "fishes" when speaking about two or more kinds of fish (species), and the term "fish" when referring to two or more individual fish organisms. For example, the publication Guidelines of the American Fisheries Society (2005) offers a preference for "fishes" as a synonym for "species of fish." Thus, in the statement "there are over 27,000 fishes in the world," the reference would be to over 27,000 fish species in the world. In the statement, "there are several million fish of the species Gadus morhua," the reference is that G. morhua comprises several million individuals. The usage of the two words is similar to that of the words "people" and "peoples." Of course, languages change over time and one may see a trend in the use of these terms as well.
I also learned fish was both singular and plural, depending on the context.
However, many grammar rules have changed. For instance, I learned that when you write a sentence that is a series, you use a comma before and. For example:
Mary, John, and Alice went to the beach. However, when I had to take a general skills test for my vocational school, I learned that now you write it Mary, John and Alice. In my day, semicolons were discouraged--you shouldn't write run-on sentences, which essentially semi-colons are used for. Now they are acceptable.
Things change. Sometimes us oldsters don't agree, but it changes nonetheless. In the end, what is literate or right depends on whether it is accepted by the majority.
Earliest citation from the O E D:
c825 Vesp. Psalter viii. 9 Fuglas heofenes & fiscas saes. ('fiscas'='fishes')
Also from the O E D under the subheading "collect. sing. used for pl."
a1300 Cursor M. 9395 (Cott.), Foghul and fiche, grett thing and small. ('fiche'=''fish')
I would invariably use fish
For example, if I were shopping in Tescos I would ask them,
Please could you tell me where the fish is? (not fishes!) even though each packet would have at least 4 fish in them.
I would agree that fish is still more commonly used for both singular and plural.
Funnily enough, the bible story is still known and referred to as 'Miracle of the loaves and the fishes' not fish I am not exactly sure why this should be the case I guess it has something to do with the fact that it is translated from another language; Greek
A sudden afterthought just came to me: the number of fish in this story was specified as 2 It maybe the case that where a specific number is clearly mentioned the word fishes eg 10 fishes but where no particular number is mentioned the word Fish is used.
I maybe wide of the mark on this one or it is posssible I maybe onto something lol
I would never use the word "fishes" for the plural of "fish."
This is what I got from two different dictionaries:
Fish noun, plural (especially collectively) = fish
Great discussion at some site called SpanishDict a short while back!
www.spanishdict.com/answers/140990/what-is-more-common-fish-or-fishes
Way back when...I was taught that more than one specie was "fishes." I have no idea what the current thinking is. lol
This is a very good question! According to the Google dictionary, both are plural. Here is the quote: fish plural ; fishes plural ; fishes 3rd person present ; fishing present participle ;
Same thing for "deer" -- one word for 1 deer, or multiple deer, there is no "deers", which I sometimes hear, and it makes blood shoot out of my eyes.
Sorry, Amykay. Deers is not necessarily incorrect either, so give your bleeding eyes a rest.
deer? ?/d??r/ Show Spelled[deer] Show IPA
–noun, plural deer, ( occasionally ) deers.
1. any of several ruminants of the family Cervidae, most of the males of which have solid, deciduous antlers.
2. any of the smaller species of this family, as distinguished from the moose, elk, etc.
Use deers in a Sentence
See images of deers
Search deers on the Web
Origin: bef. 900; ME der, OE d?or beast; akin to Goth dius beast, OHG tior Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.
Fish sounds better
when did it change?
You could show her in the dictionary that both forms are correct and she may give your marks back. This may be a case where you need to live with it. Some things are not worth fighting over... of course you could take it out in the parking lot.
I believe that fish is correct however I would probably use an adjective and say some fish or a few fish. Several species of fish would work as well.
To me, saying fishes or fishies is for little children... something I might do if I was reading a story to a child.
Language is for communicating and either way, it still gets our message across. Feel free to let it drive you crazy...I have lost marks on stupid things like this as well.
