"Formal e-mail" is a true oxymoron.
--Ted
--Ted
How would I write a formal email?
- Thread starter Da'an
- Start date
Fishes sounds stupid, but it makes sense; it may happen. The plural of ox is oxen, so no.
Why would it?
I know. It rejects "RJDiogenes," too.
^^ Shouldn't that be "olderer?" 
It does accept Camelopardalis, though.And "camelopard."
^^ Shouldn't that be "olderer?"
Nope.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTvfG3HSDYA
The conversation starts at 11 min 30 seconds, those words are uttered at 11 min 50 seconds
Oh, well. I still think "olderer" sounds betterer. 
^You're right about that!
It's just that it would be a canon violation to put that in the image when it's not in the scene...
It's just that it would be a canon violation to put that in the image when it's not in the scene...
The plural "fishes" is actually an old usage. You can find it in the King James Translation of the Bible in John 21:8, John 21:11, Mark 6:38, Mark 6:41, Zephaniah 1:3, Matthew 14:17 and other verses.
Technically, "fish" is the plural for more than one fish of the same type; "fishes" is the plural for more than one fish of different types. In practice, "fish" is the general plural form used.
I would not treat it as standard either, since the King James Bible is filled with language that is nowhere close to being accepted as standard today. I'm simply pointing out that "fishes" is not a new corruption introduced by modern casual speakers (and no one said it was either; I just felt like pointing it out).
Having said that, while I know much of the Old Testament was poetry when it was written thousands of years ago, I don't believe most of the New Testament was, and I don't believe the King James translators were treating the New Testament as poetry when they translated it millenniums later. By the way, the spell-checker rejects "millennia".
O tempora, o mores!
Well, being a Canon Champion, I'm not going to argue.
What about, "If wishes were fishes, we'd all cast our lines?"
