Why do some English words have the same singular and plural? Examples are mostly animals - deer, fish, moose, sheep, swine, buffalo - but also aircraft, stone (weight), head (cattle). Is it related to the Norman/ Saxon divide noted in Ivanhoe?
David Null, Claremont, California, USA
- Animals (most of your examples) were traditionally dealt with as 'uncountable' nouns in English (like sugar or timber) reflecting perhaps a sense that there was an inexhaustible supply to be hunted. 'We decided to hunt elephant.' Words for military equipment seem to have followed the same principle. Other examples include cannon and artillery. Words for quantities are often also used in the singular when counting, eg foot, hundred, thousand, though as with head and stone, plurals exist in other contexts: 'five foot three', 'five pound 40', five million', but 'he's worth millions'.
Keith Mason, London UK
- Ever since I can remember, "FISH" has been both singular and plural. No matter where the word originated, Webster's dictionary calls it both ways, a noun and plural. The word "fishes" should however, be declared obsolete like so many other words have been in the past. For example: Caucasion?
Reynold R. Montes, So. Pasadena, California, U.S.A.
- With fish & fishes the way I was taught was that when dealing with numbers of fish then the plural is 'fish' but when dealing with a collection of species then it is 'fishes'. The same is for sugar. You can have different types of sugar and when you refer to a single type and numbers of it then you use 'sugar' but when referring to the collection of types of sugar they are known as 'sugars'.
Galbi3000, UK
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7tbTEoKyaqpSerq96wqikaKafqbK0rc2dqK6dop6ytHvQrpyrsV9leW15kHJubW1mYX1xesetpKU%3D