You must log in or register to comment.
Objection!
You can use fishes for multiple species however it is not required. You can use fish for a collection of trout and bass
There is nothing to object to. You just repeated the picture. It says “can”, just like you did. Doesn’t say “must”.
You, at most, clarified or highlighted what was said. But you didn’t object. You agreed.
Now do email!
Of course anyone who hears this is likely to just think you’re an idiot.
Does any other plural work this way? Or is this just another stupid ass English variation?
Person/People does. The word “peoples” can be used as multiple different groups of people.
For instance you can say to “the peoples of Europe” to refer to Germans, French, Italian, etc.
interesting. so it’s like a plural or a plural. so I can say the monkeyses of the Amazon.
No because plural of the same type of monkey would still be monkeys.
Uncountable nouns (i.e.,things you usually measure by volume or weight) behave this way as well.
e.g., salt/salts to mean any measure of salt vs different types of salts. Beer/beers to mean any amount of liquid beer vs different beer styles or products.
If there’s more than 1 species of sheep, can I say sheeps?
Sheepses
Chill, Gollum
I get eaten by the worms… and weird fishes…
It’s a good thing that English isn’t actually defined by any one person or entity, and simply by its usage. That means this is bullshit.
As you say in your first sentence, language is by consensus. And, the long-standing consensus among ichthyologists is to use exactly this terminology, and you’ll find it consistently across the scientific literature for generations now.
I don’t care if the person is technically correct or not, any time I hear ‘fishes’ I cringe.
“He fishes in the lake” is a perfectly normal sentence.
A bit disingenuous since it’s from an obviously different context.
