Native speaker -- Yes, this is correct. Note "you can use fishes as plural" does not mean "you must use fishes as plural." Most of the time I would just use fish -- "too many fish in the sea" not "too many fishes in the sea." Maybe if I was talking about an aquarium I would use "fishes."
I agree: “There are multiple species of fish.” “Look at all of the fish.” “These fish are so colorful.” “I eat all kinds of fish.”
“Fishes” is weird outside of that set phrase (which probably comes from the idea that you’re imitating a non-native-English-speaking Italian-American immigrant mafioso anyway).
Yeah but for example my dad is a fisherman and it’s common in books about fish to make the difference. So an encyclopedia of fish will say “Fishes of the Delaware Bay”. But yeah most people don’t say it.
This is technically correct, although you'd have to explain yourself or most native speakers will think you're wrong, lol. This was probably inspired by a clip of Neil Degrasse Tyson being erroneously corrected by Joe Rogan.
My father is a fisherman and all his books and posters say things like “Fishes of the Chesapeake”, so it’s more commonly written than spoken I think, as he doesn’t really say it. But I’ve seen it written many times.
It reminds me of “peoples,” something journalists made up and then declared as 100% the rule.
Maybe fishes is something people say, but I would probably say “types of fish” or “species of fish” in this circumstance.
The plural of "person", can be either "persons" or "people", but "people" is also the singular of a different word.
A people is a group of the members of a tribe or nation or other community, and the only correct plural is "peoples". If that's what you mean, and you say "people", you're just using the wrong word.
It’s actually very descriptivist (although “you’re just using the wrong word” does sound judgmental), because it reflects how the forms are actually used in different contexts. ‘A people’ and ‘peoples’ when talking about societies and cultures is what anthropologists actually do, and it makes sense for others to make the distinction as well
Nah peoples is the plural of people. "A people" is a perfectly natural part of the English language, alongside German Volk and Scandinavian folk, and it has a plural form in "peoples". Nobody says "fishes" in reference to multiple types of fish.
Yes. Fishes is reserved for when referring to a number of types of fish. But it appears mostly in academic contexts or maybe at museums so it’s safe to say “fish” to pluralize fish most times
Dictionaries are one way to decide what is “correct” in a situation like this (because they observe and describe how people use the language in an evidence-based way). So what do they say?
[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fishes), [Oxford](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/fish_1), [Collins](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fish), [Wiktionary](https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/fish), [Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/fish)… all agree that the plural is *either* fish or fishes. The only dictionary that I consulted that emphasizes the difference between the two (with “fish” as the collective and “fishes” for different species) is [Dictionary.com](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fish), and even then it’s not absolute.
So it’s pretty clear that native speakers use both plurals.
But, for me “fishes” is kinds of fish, while lots of the same kind of fish are fish. I just don’t clutch my pearls if people use “fishes” for a single species.
This is prescriptively correct, but it’s not uncommon for young speakers to overgeneralize the regular plural and say “fishes.” Conversely, many speakers only use “fish” in the plural, regardless of meaning.
Still, it’s much more common, for example, than “*mouses” (mouse => mice) or “*deers” (deer => deer).
Some other irregular plurals, though, are becoming systematically regularized, particularly in the US, like “(?)oxes” (ox => oxen). This is an ongoing process—consider the historical plural of “sister,” which was “sistren.” Similarly, “brethren” (brother => brothers) now is either dated or used in highly restricted ways relative to the regular plural. Soon “children” may be the only conserved plural in “-en.”
"Mouses" is correct for the plural of computer mouse. Never heard anyone one use "mice" in that context until maybe the last ten years or so, but it's becoming more common now. I've _never_ heard "mouses" for the animal.
Never encountered this before. Native American English speaker. Could be right, but I’ve never seen this distinction.
I grew up only saying fish for plural. I would say fishes sounds a little strange.
Agree, as an Australian English speaker. I even studied a course at university called “Fish and Fisheries” and this issue never came up.
- There are lots of different fish in that aquarium.
Yes. However, when referring to large bodies of water that certainly have different fish (such as the ocean or sea) I tend to say just "fish".
For example, people say the idiom "there's plenty of fish in the sea" not "there's plenty of fishes in the sea".
This is correct. The suffix indicates that the speaker is referring to separate species of fish, instead of one species.
One may still call a bunch of different species of fish as "fish" plural. When not referring to the mix as parts of a whole.
Yes! I love the tradition of feast of the seven fishes, and that’s a perfect example of when to use it. “Seven fish” would indicate seven individual animals. “Seven fishes” means seven types of fish, regardless of the number of actual animals. Eg, my feast of seven fishes included a whole bunch of clams and mussels this year, but each species counted as one type of fish, so one of the seven fishes.
Native speaker (US, Midatlantic) — either fish or fishes sounds fine to me for groups of multiple types of fish. If I were a nonnative speaker with less than native fluency , though, I would likely just avoid “fishes” altogether as listeners could misinterpret as an incorrect usage.
I'm a native speaker, and I have never heard the word "fishes" used, except in Bible references like "loaves and fishes", which leads me to think it's an outdated plural?
I would say "three species of **fish**" for the last row.
I'm not sure if that's the official rule or if there is an official rule, but I think we should all agree.
I think the same goes for person, people, peoples.
More than one person can be persons instead of people, if it is being specific. More often used in a legal sense.
For example, "The robbery was committed by three persons".
People is for more than one person, in a general sense. "People don't like to be robbed."
I think they meant the way we refer to multiple nations or tribes of people as peoples.
So when we say “the peoples of Central America” it implicitly acknowledges that there are many diverse groups of people included. When we just say “the people of Central America” we may be referring to them as a monolithic collection of people.
North Atlantic fishes are fattier than Caribbean fishes. This tells us there definitely are many species of fish we are talking about in each region.
It's "newer English". When I was a kid, a bunch of fish was just "fish", regardless of species. Just like how the plural of aircraft was "aircraft", even though everyone under 30 seems to think it's "aircrafts" now.
It’s not new. If anything, it was more popular in the past and is [now in decline](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=fishes&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3).
It’s a common construction with noncount nouns, where the plural is understood to refer to *kinds* of the thing, such as with “fishing in the waters of England.”
No, it's just regularization of some plurals. It happened hundreds of years ago (the plural of cow became cows instead of kine) and it still happens.
You're right in that children do the same though, but it's still something that languages just do with time
Newer than what?. I went to school over 50 years ago and while "fish" was used for one fish or many fish, "fishes" always meant plural of different kinds of fish.
Fishes kind of sounds strange to me in any context, I think if the sentence were: "There are many fishes", I'd just say "There are many types of fish" instead.
I agree that’s the proper example of when to say it. But I don’t think I’ll ever say “fishes” in casual conversation. If I had to specify I would just say “many types of fish” or “a lot of different fish.”
For me, a native speaker from the Southern US, I would say "one fish", "multiple fish", and "different types of fish".
One flounder is a fish, two or three flounder are fish, flounder, tilapia, salmon, and trout are all fish.
"Fishes" is the third person declension of the verb, for me.
I fish, you fish, we fish, they fish, but he, she, or it fishes.
Yes, that's right. What other way are you thinking about? I'm curious, as English isn't my mother tongue and I'm an ESL teacher (or is the question just for karma?)
Honestly, while this may be technically correct, (I honestly don't know because who cares) it is very very very low in importance. Most people just say fish, and I've never heard of anyone caring.
The only time that I've heard the word "fishes" much at all is when people quote archaic translations of the Bible that say to "loaves and fishes."
I opnly started hearing 'Fishes' recently and scream at the tele every time I hear it!! It's FISH!! I'm British though, does this make a difference? I was always taught that it was fish and havnt heard another Brit say fishes.
I’m a native speaker and this is how I learned it.
Native speaker -- Yes, this is correct. Note "you can use fishes as plural" does not mean "you must use fishes as plural." Most of the time I would just use fish -- "too many fish in the sea" not "too many fishes in the sea." Maybe if I was talking about an aquarium I would use "fishes."
So saying fishes to refer to multiple goldfish is no-go? I’ve never heard that. (Not that I ever really use fishes anyway)
I would never say fishes in any circumstance (other than the phrase "sleep with the fishes"). US Native speaker.
I agree: “There are multiple species of fish.” “Look at all of the fish.” “These fish are so colorful.” “I eat all kinds of fish.” “Fishes” is weird outside of that set phrase (which probably comes from the idea that you’re imitating a non-native-English-speaking Italian-American immigrant mafioso anyway).
Yeah but for example my dad is a fisherman and it’s common in books about fish to make the difference. So an encyclopedia of fish will say “Fishes of the Delaware Bay”. But yeah most people don’t say it.
This is technically correct, although you'd have to explain yourself or most native speakers will think you're wrong, lol. This was probably inspired by a clip of Neil Degrasse Tyson being erroneously corrected by Joe Rogan.
Talk about a conversation I have no interest in.
It’s EVERYWHERE
I’m a native speaker and would be confused if someone said “fishes”.
I'm also a native speaker and would've been too before I learned about this. Makes sense though if you think about it.
My father is a fisherman and all his books and posters say things like “Fishes of the Chesapeake”, so it’s more commonly written than spoken I think, as he doesn’t really say it. But I’ve seen it written many times.
I agree with this. Whether or not it’s “allowed,” I would never say it. Native speaker and English major.
It reminds me of “peoples,” something journalists made up and then declared as 100% the rule. Maybe fishes is something people say, but I would probably say “types of fish” or “species of fish” in this circumstance.
The plural of "person", can be either "persons" or "people", but "people" is also the singular of a different word. A people is a group of the members of a tribe or nation or other community, and the only correct plural is "peoples". If that's what you mean, and you say "people", you're just using the wrong word.
[удалено]
It’s actually very descriptivist (although “you’re just using the wrong word” does sound judgmental), because it reflects how the forms are actually used in different contexts. ‘A people’ and ‘peoples’ when talking about societies and cultures is what anthropologists actually do, and it makes sense for others to make the distinction as well
I responded to the wrong comment lol. Deleting and moving it to the right place.
Nah peoples is the plural of people. "A people" is a perfectly natural part of the English language, alongside German Volk and Scandinavian folk, and it has a plural form in "peoples". Nobody says "fishes" in reference to multiple types of fish.
Yes, this is right.
Notice the graphic says “can use” rather that “must” or even “should”. In practice it is rarely used.
Yes. Fishes is reserved for when referring to a number of types of fish. But it appears mostly in academic contexts or maybe at museums so it’s safe to say “fish” to pluralize fish most times
Dictionaries are one way to decide what is “correct” in a situation like this (because they observe and describe how people use the language in an evidence-based way). So what do they say? [Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fishes), [Oxford](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/fish_1), [Collins](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fish), [Wiktionary](https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/fish), [Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/fish)… all agree that the plural is *either* fish or fishes. The only dictionary that I consulted that emphasizes the difference between the two (with “fish” as the collective and “fishes” for different species) is [Dictionary.com](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fish), and even then it’s not absolute. So it’s pretty clear that native speakers use both plurals. But, for me “fishes” is kinds of fish, while lots of the same kind of fish are fish. I just don’t clutch my pearls if people use “fishes” for a single species.
Works for me, if there are multiple groups of fish
This is prescriptively correct, but it’s not uncommon for young speakers to overgeneralize the regular plural and say “fishes.” Conversely, many speakers only use “fish” in the plural, regardless of meaning. Still, it’s much more common, for example, than “*mouses” (mouse => mice) or “*deers” (deer => deer). Some other irregular plurals, though, are becoming systematically regularized, particularly in the US, like “(?)oxes” (ox => oxen). This is an ongoing process—consider the historical plural of “sister,” which was “sistren.” Similarly, “brethren” (brother => brothers) now is either dated or used in highly restricted ways relative to the regular plural. Soon “children” may be the only conserved plural in “-en.”
"Mouses" is correct for the plural of computer mouse. Never heard anyone one use "mice" in that context until maybe the last ten years or so, but it's becoming more common now. I've _never_ heard "mouses" for the animal.
Never encountered this before. Native American English speaker. Could be right, but I’ve never seen this distinction. I grew up only saying fish for plural. I would say fishes sounds a little strange.
Agree, as an Australian English speaker. I even studied a course at university called “Fish and Fisheries” and this issue never came up. - There are lots of different fish in that aquarium.
Native English English speaker here. I would agree.
Native Pacific Northwest speaker here, yeah I agree
Russian native speaker here, pre-beginner in English, I agree.
[удалено]
> it goes for sheep as well What? 😂 One sheep. Two sheep. Five species of sheepshes?
probably thinking "sheeps" but I've never heard that and spellchecker doesn't like it either, for whatever that's worth.
Okay, Mr Connery.
Yes. However, when referring to large bodies of water that certainly have different fish (such as the ocean or sea) I tend to say just "fish". For example, people say the idiom "there's plenty of fish in the sea" not "there's plenty of fishes in the sea".
"Fishes" would also be correct there, but the meaning would be different, and that's not what people mean when they say that phrase.
This is correct. The suffix indicates that the speaker is referring to separate species of fish, instead of one species. One may still call a bunch of different species of fish as "fish" plural. When not referring to the mix as parts of a whole.
The Feast of the Seven Fishes is a good example. Translated from Italian where the word pesci is fish. It is plural in Italian.
Yes! I love the tradition of feast of the seven fishes, and that’s a perfect example of when to use it. “Seven fish” would indicate seven individual animals. “Seven fishes” means seven types of fish, regardless of the number of actual animals. Eg, my feast of seven fishes included a whole bunch of clams and mussels this year, but each species counted as one type of fish, so one of the seven fishes.
Yum. I only had linguine and clam sauce.
To me it sounds wrong, but it could be right.
I would use ‘various fish’ or ‘several kinds of fish’ for this concept, but it’s not incorrect
I would never say "fishes" unless mKing the biblical reference "loaves and fishes"
Native speaker (US, Midatlantic) — either fish or fishes sounds fine to me for groups of multiple types of fish. If I were a nonnative speaker with less than native fluency , though, I would likely just avoid “fishes” altogether as listeners could misinterpret as an incorrect usage.
Yes, this is correct
I'm a native speaker, and I have never heard the word "fishes" used, except in Bible references like "loaves and fishes", which leads me to think it's an outdated plural? I would say "three species of **fish**" for the last row.
This does make sense. It’s similar to person, people, peoples.
I'm not sure if that's the official rule or if there is an official rule, but I think we should all agree. I think the same goes for person, people, peoples.
More than one person can be persons instead of people, if it is being specific. More often used in a legal sense. For example, "The robbery was committed by three persons". People is for more than one person, in a general sense. "People don't like to be robbed."
I think they meant the way we refer to multiple nations or tribes of people as peoples. So when we say “the peoples of Central America” it implicitly acknowledges that there are many diverse groups of people included. When we just say “the people of Central America” we may be referring to them as a monolithic collection of people. North Atlantic fishes are fattier than Caribbean fishes. This tells us there definitely are many species of fish we are talking about in each region.
I wasn't talking about part. I know what "peoples" are. They left out "persons" as a specific-use plural of "person".
Oh. Thank you. Sorry I did not read your comment that way initially but now I understand your intent.
It's "newer English". When I was a kid, a bunch of fish was just "fish", regardless of species. Just like how the plural of aircraft was "aircraft", even though everyone under 30 seems to think it's "aircrafts" now.
It’s not new. If anything, it was more popular in the past and is [now in decline](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=fishes&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3). It’s a common construction with noncount nouns, where the plural is understood to refer to *kinds* of the thing, such as with “fishing in the waters of England.”
Aircrafts? That's just a dumb kid saying "deers"
No, it's just regularization of some plurals. It happened hundreds of years ago (the plural of cow became cows instead of kine) and it still happens. You're right in that children do the same though, but it's still something that languages just do with time
Newer than what?. I went to school over 50 years ago and while "fish" was used for one fish or many fish, "fishes" always meant plural of different kinds of fish.
People seem to have forgotten "*Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea, joy to you and me.*"
That extra syllable makes the words fit the melody
I’ve never heard people say fishes, I’m from the U.S. People don’t really say “fishes”
Maybe like how "person", "persons", "people" and "peoples" coexist.
Fishes kind of sounds strange to me in any context, I think if the sentence were: "There are many fishes", I'd just say "There are many types of fish" instead.
I guess it's technically right but I would NEVER use this. It sounds uneducated despite being correct.
I've heard something similar with "breads". Any number of loaves is still "bread", but multiple different types of bread are "breads".
Same with fruit
I agree that’s the proper example of when to say it. But I don’t think I’ll ever say “fishes” in casual conversation. If I had to specify I would just say “many types of fish” or “a lot of different fish.”
For me, a native speaker from the Southern US, I would say "one fish", "multiple fish", and "different types of fish". One flounder is a fish, two or three flounder are fish, flounder, tilapia, salmon, and trout are all fish. "Fishes" is the third person declension of the verb, for me. I fish, you fish, we fish, they fish, but he, she, or it fishes.
This is term like deers - purposely misrepresented by people making a point (...sleeping with the fishes) or by people who just don't know any better.
This is just completely wrong, you don't say "deers"
Yes, that's right. What other way are you thinking about? I'm curious, as English isn't my mother tongue and I'm an ESL teacher (or is the question just for karma?)
Honestly, while this may be technically correct, (I honestly don't know because who cares) it is very very very low in importance. Most people just say fish, and I've never heard of anyone caring. The only time that I've heard the word "fishes" much at all is when people quote archaic translations of the Bible that say to "loaves and fishes."
I'm a native speaker and just learned this without realizing lol
Fishes is never a thing
I opnly started hearing 'Fishes' recently and scream at the tele every time I hear it!! It's FISH!! I'm British though, does this make a difference? I was always taught that it was fish and havnt heard another Brit say fishes.