- Forum >
- Topic: German >
- "So viele Fische!"
32 Comments This discussion is locked.
If the fish is food, in English you would say 'So much fish'. If it is live animals, you would say 'so many fish'. In this case, So 'much' fish was not accepted.
It's still not accepted because it's still not correct.
So viel Fisch = So much fish
So viele Fische = So many fish
Thanks! My mistake.
And how would you say "So many fishes" (i.e., species of fish) in German?
In different contexts it can mean something else. Eg. Es ist schwerig, SO gut wie er zu laufen. Literal translation: It is hard, so good as he to walk. But a better translation is It's hard to walk as he does. Or It's hard to walk as well as he does.
301
Incorrect. 1 fish of a specific kind- many fish of that same kind, but many fishes of various kinds.
Just in case you are interested, Matthew Ch 15, verses 34 & 36 both contain the word "fishes".
I think it's a mistake on Duolingo. Even though many people don't use fishes. I believe you'll find it in the dictionary. But I couldn't say for sure
What version are you reading? Does not say 'fishes' in mine (NIV).
They are translations and thus, are only as good as the translators grasp of the languages they are translating from/to.
I don't doubt that about other translations. Just curious of which one he was reading from.
Actually, that used to be the case. However, I notice that a lot of dictionaries now list 'fishes' as an acceptable plural form. Not cool when the language changes due to others not willing to learn the correct way.
"Fishes", at least here, is an acceptable plural form in much the same way "peoples" is. Fishes essentially refers to multiple types of fishes (species). However, this pluralization can usually be avoided by saying types/schools of fish, i.e. there are many fishes in this part of the sea/there are many schools of fish in this part of the sea, or I have three different fishes/I have three different types of fish. "Peoples of the earth" exists for pretty much the same reason, even though "peoples" is "wrong" because people is already plural.
I completely agree with that. One reason why I don't like the English language, it's full of slang and does not seem proper anymore. I often have to ask people what they are talking about because I don't understand the excessive slang used. Makes me look like I'm the stupid one.
Haha....I understand. America is full of slang, which is ok in my opinion, but it should not be adopted as proper English. When I was growing up there was English for public speaking, speaking to strangers, elders,etc., and there was slang which we only used when talking to friends or people our age. Now, it seems that fewer people are learning proper English and that rather than correct them, they accomodate them by putting the words in dictionaries. I hate to think how bad it's going to get if it continues like this.
>"it should not be adopted as proper English" "I hate to think how bad it's going to get if it continues like this."
Languages evolve. Why do you think German and English are different languages? Because they split ways and evolved from proto-Germanic. Languages change, it's natural. What wouldn't be natural would be to not let it evolve and artificially keep it the same.
Grammar books and dictionaries don't make it correct English, the speakers of the language do.
Slang is the truest, most real version of English.
So, are you saying any slang word I use, in whatever grammatical structure that makes sense to me and my friends should be taught to those trying to learn English?
I agree that languages evolve. But they don't just change without reason. When words are changed in reference materials but are still taught in school the old way, it can become quite confusing for non-native speakers to understand the language. In addition, if you are taking tests on the language you could end up with some very disappointing grades.
It's fine to change words in dictionaries, grammar books,etc., if the use of the word(s), grammatical structure have become ubiquitous.
As I said, there is a time and a place for certain modes of language, that is, if you want others to undertand you.
- 301
Johannesm1111, you are certainly correct in saying that languages evolve and you raise an interesting debate regarding slang being the "truest" version of a language. I do agree that new words need to be created in order for a language to evolve, but not from slang- English slang TODAY is mostly comprised of words that mean what original words of the proper language mean (or they are words that are born out of rebellion- like swear words) and they therefore are not needed. The new words forming today are in the fields that are relatively new to us- technology, modern sport, science etc. and these are not slang words...
This is not an American thing...in America, a wag is only something a dog does, pissed means angry, and don't even get me started on Cockney rhyming slang... Everyone contributes to a language evolving. It is mot limited to one nation.
- 301
Yes, I see what you are saying. One must, however, keep in mind that the English language is of a relatively flexible nature- this is one of its main characteristics. Realise that there is proper English out there (whether it is used by the people you know or not), so please do not judge and criticize the language. Remember it is not the language that you see to be flawed, but rather the way in which the people you know speak it.
Fishes is not a word. The plural for fish is fish. Just like the plural of sheep is sheep.
It most certainly is a word. It means "species of fish".
https://www.amazon.com/Fishes-Gulf-Mexico-Louisiana-Adjacent/dp/0890967679
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fish/index.html
http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/5851.htm
....
Bombauer, that's because viele, usually translates to "many" and "so viele" to "so many". "Viel" and "viele" translate slightly differently. I seem to remember that if you ask, "Wie viel?", you are asking "how much" but if you ask "Wie viele?", you are asking "how many". That may be wrong, but that's what I remember.
As far as fishes and peoples go, both have been correct plurals for longer than any of us have been alive, or even our lives combined, and continue to have their perfect uses. Also, fish (no -es), and people (no -s) are just as correct, as you all have pointed out.
I'm sorry for you youngsters that public schools seem no longer to be teaching you how to use a dictionary effectively. They are fascinating books. Remember, though, most dictionaries no longer define words according to what is correct but, rather, according to what is popular. Do yourselves a favor and invest in several OLD dictionaries, with etymologies.
For the couple of you who made biblical references, about a dozen years ago, Jesus allowed me to see what He called His "peoples shirt", referring to peoples of people, or "races" (His word, not mine). It contains the colors of every race on Earth: red, brown, yellow, black, and white (we are precious in His sight).
There's "Andere Mütter haben auch schöne Söhne/Töchter", but there's none using fish.
