Ganoderma Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 can someone help me out. i am from canada and we were taught things like 1 fish, 2 fish. why don't certain words, such as fish, not use "es" for the plural. i am told osme places do use fishes (england, correct me if i am wrong). can someone explain to me the logic behind this? why 1 shark/2 sharks but 1/2 is/are still fish? I feel pretty stupid, i am an ESL teacher :cup: PS sorry for all my bad spelling in every post i make, typing is a chore for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 What a curious question. I am not sure the underlying reason behind it. Deer is another that is the same plural and singular. It turns out that wiki has a good listing of english plural words and usage, but not really good explanation: English plural - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaSome 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 The plural deers is listed in some dictionaries,[1] but is considered by many to be an error. I'd also like to know why? Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea... :cup: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 I've always assumed--and been told by many who have had to learn it as non-natives--that English was one of the hardest languages to learn because its seemingly *nothing but* "exceptions to the rule." Its right up there with Russian and Chinese. You're dancing next to another fun topic that maybe someone wants to start a thread on: the endless group nouns we have lying about the language... A Pod of Meeses,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Fish is primarily a mass noun, that is, all that stuff we got in the net, without paying attention to the individuals in it, just the weight of the whole. But when I'm observing two "fishes" swimming around, I prefer considering them as two individuals. :cup: Also, there are many complex switches between mass nouns, collective nouns and countable nouns that lead to weird grammatical things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monomer Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 The plural of fish is fish or fishes depending on what you're referring to. When you're talking about fish in general then the plural is fish, but if you're talking about different species of fish then the plural is fishes: Ask the English Teacher: Fish or Fishes? Also, there appears to be no reason why the plural of deer or sheep is the same as the singular, it's just the way it's been since the beginnings of the english language: plural - definition of plural by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. I feel pretty stupid, i am an ESL teacher :cup: Don't feel stupid. Most people who have learnt english from birth still get confused and don't really know or understand the rules and exceptions of the language. Tormod 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 I recall hearing that all languages tend to use irregular forms for important and frequently used parts of speech. Plural forms would be an example: The plural of an important word like “man” is the irregular “men”, while the less important “tree” is the regular “trees”. Continuing this explanation, commodities – things that can be collected as a form of wealth – tend to use the same word for singular as plural – eg: sheep/sheep, vs. a non-commodity such as horse/horses. Fish, deer, etc. have self-plurals for the same reason. As languages evolve, these irregularities are supposed to become less common. As a linguist, author J.R.R.Tolkien is said to have been aware of this theory, so when he invented fictional sentient species, he gave them irregular plurals, eg: dwarf/dwarves, elf/elves. More humble species retained regular plurals, eg: hobbit/hobbits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 I agree with Leo and I'll add that this type of thing exists in many languages. I believe however that there are other invariant plurals, not only ones of this type, whereas some mass nouns are quite different from the one for indiviaduals (such as person-people). As a linguist, author J.R.R.Tolkien is said to have been aware of this theory, so when he invented fictional sentient species, he gave them irregular plurals, eg: dwarf/dwarves, elf/elves. More humble species retained regular plurals, eg: hobbit/hobbits.It certainly wasn't Tolkien that invented the words 'dwarf' and 'elf'. These plurals belong to a wide category, that of nouns ending in f. How many hooves does a deer have? How many halves make a whole? How many staves do we need? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Slightly off topic but in the same vein, I've always wonder why it's called a "pair of scissors". In Norwegian it's called "en saks" (meaning "a scissor"). Same thing with trousers: a pair of trousers...but it's only one item. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric l Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Slightly off topic but in the same vein, I've always wonder why it's called a "pair of scissors". In Norwegian it's called "en saks" (meaning "a scissor"). Same thing with trousers: a pair of trousers...but it's only one item. :) How about a "pair of binocculars" then ? Would that be four occulars ? Tormod 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric l Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 This diiferent ways to make plurals in English must have something to with the multiple roots of the English language (Anglo-Saxon, Latin, Normandy French, probably some Viking languages too). Plural by vowel-change is as in "goose -> geese" (just to indicate that it is not aways a question of importance) is also quite frequent in German, though in German you often have the combination of vowel-change and suffix as in "Mann -> Männer" or "Baum -> Bäume". And we were taught that the plural of fish is fishes when you actually count them : "a dozen fish" would mean "about 12", while "a dozen fishes" would mean "exactly 12". I wonder if native speakers can confirm this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric l Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Continuing this explanation, commodities – things that can be collected as a form of wealth – tend to use the same word for singular as plural – eg: sheep/sheep, vs. a non-commodity such as horse/horses. Fish, deer, etc. have self-plurals for the same reason. If this were true, how do you explain that the plural of goat is goats (are they that different from sheep ?) or the plural of lam is lambs (to remain with the sheep) ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Slightly off topic but in the same vein, I've always wonder why it's called a "pair of scissors". In Norwegian it's called "en saks" (meaning "a scissor"). Same thing with trousers: a pair of trousers...but it's only one item. Yes, that's funny. A related note that may clear things a little bit, or not, French singular ciseau means chisel, clearly a single item, while the plural ciseaux means scissors. Scissors are not really pairs of chisels, but the meaning of ciseau/chisel was probably wider in the Middle Ages than now. If this were true, how do you explain that the plural of goat is goats (are they that different from sheep ?) or the plural of lam is lambs (to remain with the sheep) ? Maybe goats and lambs are more specific, while cattle, sheep, fowl, fish, are more general and frequent? The countable form of cattle is "head of cattle". Just a direction of research, I'm not quite sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 My favorite example is "a pair of panties" and "a bra". Which do you associate as being plural? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 It certainly wasn't Tolkien that invented the words 'dwarf' and 'elf'. These plurals belong to a wide category, that of nouns ending in f.Correct – the word “elf” goes back at least to the prehistoric Norse ca 1800 BC, while “dwarf” has long been used to describe unusually short and/or stocky human beings, legendary, or fictional human-like beings. However, prior to Tolkien, the usual plurals of dwarf was dwarfs. He purposefully introduced the irregular plural to emphasize that, like man/men, his fictional dwarf/dwarves were an intelligent, cultured race of beings. (source: the wikipedia article “dwarf”) In modern usage, most people refer to the fictional beings as dwarves, while real human beings are called “dwarfs”, or a more current, socially sensitive term such as “little people”. I was wrong about Tolkien’s influence on the word “elf”. The elfs/elves plural goes back many years, and appears related to, as Qfwfq notes, particular languages’ rules for changing “f”s to “v”s or “b”s. In modern (but still pre-Tolkein) usage, its pluralization and adjectivization appears to be more complicated than I previously knew, with the plural “elfs” and adjectives “elfish” and “elfin” implying tiny-sized beings, while “elves”, “elvish” and “elven” implies human-sized ones. (source: the wikipedia article “elf”) Though not as clearly as with the word “dwarf”, I suspect Tolkien’s work influenced this modern usage as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 My favorite example is "a pair of panties" and "a bra". Which do you associate as being plural? Your beer goggles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted February 3, 2007 Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 However, prior to Tolkien, the usual plurals of dwarf was dwarfs.:doh: and I could have easily noticed the plural in the dictionary!!! :lol: Not that I was claiming there to be no exceptions to the "f-rule". No, it ain't 'cause I'd had a few whiffs of glue before posting, just my time for hypographating is always short...:beer: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.