Why don't ''fish'', ''sheep'', ''deer'', ''cattle'',

Singulars and Plurals   Thursday, September 16, 2004, 01:39 GMT
''moose'' and ''salmon'' have plurals?

Why are there no such words as ''fishes'', ''sheeps'', ''deers'', ''cattles'', ''mooses'' and ''salmons''.
Juan   Thursday, September 16, 2004, 02:29 GMT
It's the way the language evolved. Every language has its own unique peculiarities.
Jim   Thursday, September 16, 2004, 02:38 GMT
They do have plurals: ''fish'', ''sheep'', ''deer'', ''cattle'', ''moose'' and ''salmon''.
Singulars and Plurals   Thursday, September 16, 2004, 02:43 GMT
Okay, Why are the plurals the same as the singulars?

It would be less confusing if they had normal plurals, that is, plurals where you add -s, or -es.

Why don't they have regular plurals?



Mi5 Mick   Thursday, September 16, 2004, 02:55 GMT
fishes is OK
Mxsmanic   Thursday, September 16, 2004, 03:39 GMT
That's just the way things are.
Paul   Thursday, September 16, 2004, 06:28 GMT
While cattle is a plural noun already, I have heard "fishes" and "salmons".

BTW, a mate asked me about something really funny, but I couldn't find a logical answer so I told him it is just the way of language. He told me if the plural of "goose" is "geese", then why the plural of "moose" is "meese". Funny, ain't it?
Jim   Thursday, September 16, 2004, 06:38 GMT
... and if the plural of "mouse" is "mice" why "houses" not "hice"? There must be an answer somewhere ... lost in the mysts of tyme.
Singulars and Plurals.   Friday, September 17, 2004, 01:27 GMT
''They do have plurals: ''fish'', ''sheep'', ''deer'', ''cattle'', ''moose'' and ''salmon''''-''

Jim, the words ''fish'', ''sheep'', ''deer'', ''cattle'', ''moose'' and ''salmon'' do not have plurals. The words ''fish'', ''sheep'', ''deer'', ''cattle'', ''moose'' and ''salmon'' are the singulars not the plurals. A plural cannot be the same as a singular. If you could add an ''s'' or ''es'' to the end of those words then they'd have a plural but you can't. The words ''fish'', ''sheep'', ''deer'', ''cattle'', ''moose'' and ''salmon'' strangely have no plurals.

How would it be if we gave the words ''fish'', ''sheep'', ''deer'', ''cattle'', ''moose'' and ''salmon''. The plurals would be,

Dulcinea del Toboso   Friday, September 17, 2004, 01:43 GMT
As others have said, that's just the nature of the language.

Also, these words are already plural. If it's important to specify a particular animal you can refer to a bull or a cow as one animal out of a herd of cattle, for example.
Jim   Friday, September 17, 2004, 01:43 GMT
"A plural cannot be the same as a singular." ... and I suppose that the past participle can't be the same as the present tense.
Singulars and Plurals   Friday, September 17, 2004, 01:45 GMT
Jim, those words listed above do not have plurals.
FYI   Friday, September 17, 2004, 02:38 GMT
Note on usage: fish vs. fishes

Fishes is the proper English plural form of fish that biologists use when speaking about two or more fish species, as in "There are over 25,000 fishes in the world" (meaning that there are over 25,000 fish species in the world). When speaking of many fish that all are part of the same species, then the word "fish" is used, as in "There are several million fish in the species Gadus morhua."
Paul   Friday, September 17, 2004, 08:56 GMT
Well, where do I live all native speakers say "salmons".
Bobby   Friday, September 17, 2004, 09:18 GMT
Are all fish species like salmon, I can't think of any that you add s to the plural?