Prev: ODFPY
Next: Reading file bit by bit
From: Steven D'Aprano on 7 Jun 2010 01:41
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 21:45:44 -0700, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:29:59 +1000, Ben Finney
> <ben+python(a)benfinney.id.au> declaimed the following in
> gmane.comp.python.general:
>
>> claim to the word. The existing forums are still forums.
>>
> I favor "fora" <G>

I see your smiley, but the Oxford dictionary does suggest that "fora" is
only acceptable as the plural when talking about more than one ancient
Roman forum. When using it in the context of English, as we are doing
here, the accepted plural is "forums". After all, we don't use Inuit
pluralisation rules when talking about more than one anorak.


> Like the difference between fish (plural species) and fishes
> (which I tend to use for plural of one specie)


That's a hypercorrection. The singular of species is species, not specie.
Specie is a different word: coins or hard cash.

There is a phrase "in specie", which means "in kind", which is formed
from the same root as species, but the words are different and species is
its own plural.

"Fish" can be either singular (as in "I fed the fish") or a collective
noun ("there are many fish that live in salt water"). Plural is "fishes",
as in "I ate three fishes", although in common use people tend to use
fish/fishes as both plural and collective nouns.



--
Steven
From: rantingrick on 8 Jun 2010 01:53
On Jun 7, 12:41 am, Steven D'Aprano <steve-REMOVE-
T...(a)cybersource.com.au> wrote:

> "Fish" can be either singular (as in "I fed the fish") or a collective
> noun ("there are many fish that live in salt water"). Plural is "fishes",
> as in "I ate three fishes", although in common use people tend to use
> fish/fishes as both plural and collective nouns.
>
> --
> Steven

Do you use the word "fishes". I don't think i've ever heard anyone use
that word -- well except for children before being corrected. I ate
three fishes just sounds wrong to me. What's the plural of sheep
Stephen :-D

@ Ben
Ok Ben you convinced me, after absorbing your arguments i do now
believe that Usenet is better.
From: News123 on 8 Jun 2010 17:24
rantingrick wrote:
> On Jun 7, 12:41 am, Steven D'Aprano <steve-REMOVE-
> T...(a)cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>
>> "Fish" can be either singular (as in "I fed the fish") or a collective
>> noun ("there are many fish that live in salt water"). Plural is "fishes",
>> as in "I ate three fishes", although in common use people tend to use
>> fish/fishes as both plural and collective nouns.
>>
>> --
>> St

I thought fishes is used when talking about different species.
and fish for multile ones of the same species.
Most people not interested in animals don't care though and mix them up
randomly.

So you would see ten gold fish
but during snorkeling or in some aquariums you can see multiple fishes





even
>
> Do you use the word "fishes". I don't think i've ever heard anyone use
> that word -- well except for children before being corrected. I ate
> three fishes just sounds wrong to me. What's the plural of sheep
> Stephen :-D
>
> @ Ben
> Ok Ben you convinced me, after absorbing your arguments i do now
> believe that Usenet is better.
From: Jack Diederich on 8 Jun 2010 22:00
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Mark Young <marky1991(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> According to the Oxford Dictionary:
>
> fish noun, verb noun (pl.fish or fishes)Fish is the usual plural form. The
> older form, fishes, can be used to refer to different kinds of fish...
>
> However, I would correct anyone that ever used "fishes".

"loaves and fishes" would be familiar (but still archaic) to anyone
who has read the King James Version of the bible.
http://bible.cc/luke/9-16.htm

-Jack
From: rantingrick on 8 Jun 2010 22:33
On Jun 8, 9:00 pm, Jack Diederich <jackd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Mark Young <marky1...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > According to the Oxford Dictionary:
>
> > fish noun, verb noun (pl.fish or fishes)Fish is the usual plural form. The
> > older form, fishes, can be used to refer to different kinds of fish...
>
> > However, I would correct anyone that ever used "fishes".
>
> "loaves and fishes" would be familiar (but still archaic) to anyone
> who has read the King James Version of the bible.http://bible.cc/luke/9-16.htm

I had read it extensively in early life and even then found the
language too odd. Here's one

"""He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off,
shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD."""

Sorry Mister Bobbit, but you must have some stones to enter these
pearly gates!

Check this site:
http://dan.hersam.com/2006/12/06/10-strange-verses-in-the-bible/

I had to dust off an old KJB and read the lines myself because i could
not believe it!
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: ODFPY
Next: Reading file bit by bit