Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Enrico C <use_replyto_address@despammed.com>
Newsgroups: alt.languages.english
Subject: Re: fishes?
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 10:08:09 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: LillaTheDog.net
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <11rrxefq1ak0z.dlg@news.lillathedog.net>
References: <40b1b1ad$1@news.broadpark.no>
Reply-To: enrico.c@people.it
NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl203-156-037.mclink.it
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: newsreader1.mclink.it 1085393289 45344 213.203.156.37 (24 May 2004 10:08:09 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@newsreader1.mclink.it
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 10:08:09 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.12.1 (389a3b6c.485.104) Hamster/2.0.5.1
X-Face: "r6;_Y:euflWQIf$5%P0Fc%TyS(t/+D6fCCS2W;0Rk)BBVCt|z#ERoPCI%0QA`vmEi&(y';5Th{Li4G1HXItb0_)&PWr
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.languages.english:306
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk | alt.languages.english
in <news:40b1b1ad$1@news.broadpark.no>
> 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?
The Oxford Adv. L. Dictionary says
"Fish is the usual plural form. The older form, fishes, can be used to
refer to different kinds of fish."
Could that be the case?
--
Enrico C - Not a native speaker
(T)EFL online communities
http://groups.msn.com/TEFL
|
|