[Ann Drysdale]

Please will someone tell me if there is a linguistic difference between the US and UK on the matter of little fishes. What, in the States, is the plural of "fry"?

I think I may have done - that thing - again in the criticism I offered to a poet on non-met and if I did I must apologise. Just a quick answer to this one query and then let this slide. Please.

[Patricia A. Marsh]

Originally Posted by Ann Drysdale

Please will someone tell me if there is a linguistic difference between the US and UK on the matter of little fishes. What, in the States, is the plural of "fry"?

I think I may have done - that thing - again in the criticism I offered to a poet on non-met and if I did I must apologise. Just a quick answer to this one query and then let this slide. Please.

When referring to live fishes---plural---they're "fry" . . . but . . . for more on the subject, see the following link: http://josecarilloforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=737.0

[Ann Drysdale]

Thank you, Patricia - I was aware of the other uses of "fries" but was specially concerned about the fishes. I had thought that the word "fry" would better cover several meanings (including the others) since "fries" would not cover, grammatically, the immature fish.

I now see that my word-orientation has tripped me again. Perhaps the word "fries" is a plural of all the meanings rather than each of them.

I am now pretty certain that I've done the poet an injustice, but not the one I feared at first. Bless you.

[Gail White]

I was thrown off there for a minute, because in the South, "fish fry" (singular) is a social gathering accompanied by cole slaw and hushpuppies. But Patricia is right.

[Philip Quinlan]

Well, the very same dictionary being quoted not only thinks that the plural of fry is fries, but also seems to think the plural of fish is fishes.

The latter is a rare archaic usage, for sure (just to avoid someone quoting the bible at me). In fact, so far as my failing eyes can determine, my OED doesn't even have that as an archaic usage.

But since Mike has made it plain he didn't intend "fry" in that sense, best to let this drop as Ann intended.

Philip

[Janice D. Soderling]

Fishes isn't archaic, Philip, a writer just needs to know when to use which.

ODWE says: fish pl. same, unless describing differing types or species, in which case use –es.

Fowler, as revised by Gower (under collectives) says; 3. Nouns that make plural forms in the normal way, but whose singular form may also be used as a plural, sometimes with little if any difference of meaning, e.g. cannon, duck, fish, but more often with some special implication. For instance hair, straw, and timber are used for the mass, hairs, straws, and timbers for the particular; chicken, lamb, cabbage, and potato are on the dinner table, chickens, lambs, cabbages, and potatoes are in their natural state; shot and game are for the pellets and their objectives, shots and games for those words in their other senses; elephant and lion are in the ush, elephants and lions in the zoo; fruit is the current word and fruits the archaic.

Encarta dictionary has fish, fishes as current plurals.

ODE says under Usage. The normal plural of fish is fish (a shoal of fish; he caught two huge fish). The older form fishes is still used, when referring to different kids of fish (freshwater fishes of the British Isles).

The AmHerDict says fish pl fish or fishes.

About fry.

AmHer Dict:
fry pl n. 1a. small fish, esp. young, recently hatched fish. B. the young of certain other animals. 2. Individuals, especially young or insignificant persons: "These pampered public school boys…had managed to evade the long prison sentences that lesser fry were serving" Neil Annan.

ODE
fry – pl n. young fish, esp. when newly hatched. The young of other animals produced in large numbers, such as frogs.

It is fries only when it is french fries (or French fries, for those who don't or won't lowercase).

The Dictionary Lady, at your service.