+0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1. Millions of years of life have grown from this land.

I presume the above life is used as an uncountable noun. But can I also use countable noun her as:

Millions of years of lives have grown from this land.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#2.

What (singular or plural nouns) should follow these modifiers " thousands of / millions of / hundreds of " ? Because I've seen people using "millions of fish (singular)" and thought to myself why they don't use the plural form.

millions of life

millions of lives

millions of fish

millions of fishes
+0
akdom--

#1. Millions of years of life have grown from this land.

I presume the above life is used as an uncountable noun. But can I also use countable noun her as:

Millions of years of lives have grown from this land. I don't think so, but I believe "Millions of years worth of lives have grown from this land" works.

--

#2.

What (singular or plural nouns) should follow these modifiers " thousands of / millions of / hundreds of " ? Because I've seen people using "millions of fish (singular)" and thought to myself why they don't use the plural form.

millions of life Only this one does not work.

millions of lives

millions of fish

millions of fishes (could be taken as "species of fish," but that would be a lot)

+0
Hi,

In my experience, many native speakers never use the word 'fishes'.

However, it seems to be a word that intrigues many non-native speakers.Emotion: smile

Clive
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Comments  
Thanks! But, could you say more about the difference between "millions of fishes" and "millions of fish?"

In the case below, what's the difference?

Millions of fish have died from pollution.

Millions of fishes have died from pollution.

I don't get why we both singular and plural here is legal. My instinct tells me that since there are A LOT OF fishes, therefore, I should use the plural form.
I don't really have very much to say about it. It's one of those words whose plural is identical to its singular. One deer, two deer. One fish, two fish. One sheep, two sheep. One moose, two moose.

The special thing about "fish" is that "fishes" is also allowed as plural.

It's also true that "Fishes which live in cold water . . . " may be taken to mean "Various species of fish which live in cold water . . . "

Emotion: smile
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Great! A million thanks to you...

And I've looked it up and found out that my confusion is due to my ill-understanding of "irregular plural forms." Below are many nouns that have this feature, and this certainly clears up for me.

Quote:

There are a number of animals that have the same singular and plural form:

bison - bison
deer - deer
moose - moose
sheep - sheep
swine - swine

There are also some animal names that form the plural the same as the singular or use the s or es form:

antelope - antelope or antelopes
cod - cod or cods
elk - elk or elks
fish - fish or fishes
flounder - flounder or flounders
grouse - grouse or grouses
herring - herring or herrings
quail - quail or quails
reindeer - reindeer or reindeers
salmon - salmon or salmons
shrimp - shrimp or shrimps
trout - trout or trouts
 Clive's reply was promoted to an answer.