+0
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.
1 2 3
Comments  
I think no. 3 is the correct one. !!!
I think all are grammatically correct. But the meanings are not exactly the same.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
AnonymousAre 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.
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
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! Emotion: embarrassed
Try out our live chat room.
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.
Thanks for the prompt answer! I know I cannot trust google all the time Emotion: thinking
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"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...".
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Show more