Anonymous  +  134699 Wed, 07 Sep 05 10:07 AM Are these sentences correct? 1.Fish is cold-blooded. 2.Fish are cold-blooded. 3.The fish is cold-blooded. 4 The fish are cold-blooded. Anonymous

	Philip  +  134816 Wed, 07 Sep 05 05:03 PM  Anonymous wrote: Are these sentences correct? 1.Fish is cold-blooded. 2.Fish are cold-blooded.If you are talking about the general condition of a group of animals, this is the one that is correct. 3.The fish is cold-blooded. 4 The fish are cold-blooded. The others sound artificial to my native use of English. Philip Joined on Thu, Jun 23 2005 Veteran Member 8,604 At reise er at leve! - H. C. Andersen

	MrPedantic  +  135022 Thu, 08 Sep 05 07:40 AM I would say: 1.Fish is cold-blooded. – refers to fish as a food. So incorrect. 2.Fish are cold-blooded. – refers to fish generally. Fine. 3.The fish is cold-blooded. – refers to a particular fish, or fish in general. Okay; but it's unusual to use it in the latter sense, as "fish" doesn't relate to a genus or family. 4 The fish are cold-blooded. – refers to several fish. Fine, but not common. MrP MrPedantic Joined on Tue, Oct 12 2004 Veteran Member 13,616 ...opella forensis / adducit febris...

	MissLadybird  +  540758 Sun, 13 Jul 08 02:28 PM  What about these two sentences? 1. There is a lot of fish in this river. 2. There are a lot of fish in this river.   PS the dictionary says that "fish" is singular if we speak about fish as food, and plural if we speak about animals which live in water. However, google search gives results like "there is a lot of fish" AND "there are a lot of fish" in the same context (fishing reports). I am confused!  MissLadybird Joined on Wed, Feb 21 2007 New Member 14 You live and learn... Plurals

	RayH  +  540778 Sun, 13 Jul 08 03:08 PM MissLadybird “ What about these two sentences? 1. There is a lot of fish in this river. 2. There are a lot of fish in this river. PS the dictionary says that "fish" is singular if we speak about fish as food, and plural if we speak about animals which live in water. However, google search gives results like "there is a lot of fish" AND "there are a lot of fish" in the same context (fishing reports). I am confused!  ” I think I have enough experience on these forums to be able to say with some conviction that indiscriminate Google searches send people off in the the wrong direction far more often than they shed light on a question. Google is a fine a useful tool but it is not a reliable method of determining the whether something is grammatically correct or not. That said, only sentence 2 is natural sounding. Number 1 is not something you will hear, except as a joke perhaps. RayH Joined on Sat, Mar 22 2008 Contributing Member 1,555 Native speaker of U. S. English. Not a grammar expert. Plurals, Jokes

	MissLadybird  +  540799 Sun, 13 Jul 08 04:58 PM  Thanks for the prompt answer! I know I cannot trust google all the time One more sentence - just to make it clear: A lot of fish we buy today is produced in fish farms. "Fish" here means "food", that's why they use "is" (this sentence is from a book called Key Words for Fluency - pre-intermediate collocation practice by George Woolard). So, would it be correct to say "A lot of fish are grown in fish farms" if I meant the fish that are not food? MissLadybird

	Huevos  +  540935 Sun, 13 Jul 08 10:58 PM MissLadybird “"Fish" here means "food", that's why they use "is"” Whether fish is food has nothing to do with whether you use the plural or singular; the important thing is can it be unitized. So if it were a fillet you would say "I had fish for lunch", where as if it were recognizable as a fish you could say either "I had fish..." or "I had a/two fish...". Huevos Joined on Tue, Mar 25 2008 Regular Member 626 British Native Plurals