Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 11:46:54 +0200
From: Julien Pourtet <yulinux@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (X11/20040506)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.languages.english
Subject: Re: fishes?
References: <40b1b1ad$1@news.broadpark.no>
In-Reply-To: <40b1b1ad$1@news.broadpark.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <40b1c48e$0$7709$636a15ce@news.free.fr>
Organization: Guest of ProXad - France
NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 May 2004 11:46:54 MEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.56.200.70
X-Trace: 1085392014 news5-e.free.fr 7709 81.56.200.70:10955
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.languages.english:304
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
> hi
>
> when I was in school, years ago, I learned that pluro of 'fish' was
> 'fish'. Now, reading an american semi-scientific book about cichlids, I
> find the writer using 'fishes' instead.
>
> Is this an american side form, or what the hell is this?
>
> regards
>
> roy
Hello :)
Well, 'fishes' does exist. However, in British English, it is only used
while talking about different species of fish. The same as 'fruits'.
--
Julien Pourtet
|
|