You are correct but both fish and fishes are accepted as correct in English. If you want to answer to be just fish, the phrase should be more specific. I have over 20 years of schooling (high school, undergrad, grad) and have taken several English writing classes. Fishes has always been acceptable as a plural form of fish.
When writing something in English, I'd probably use singular-Fish plural-Fish and when writing about different species of Fish then only Fish To be sure check out the link-https://www.grammarly.com/blog/fish-fishes/#:~:text=The%20plural%20of%20fish%20is,often%20referred%20to%20as%20fishes. (13/04/2021)
No - keinen is the accusative form used with masculine nouns.
A neuter noun would have had kein in the accusative case, e.g. Fische trinken kein Bier. (das Bier is neuter, der Saft is masculine and thus also der Orangensaft.)
keine is for feminine nouns, as you said, e.g. Fische trinken keine Limonade.
And it's used for plural nouns as well, regardless of their gender, e.g. Fische trinken keine Säfte.
It is also used in feminine dative and genitive and plural genitive. Here is a great site that should help with that: http://germanforenglishspeakers.com/adjectives/adjective-declensions/
Because they are not talking about a specific event, but about fish in general. if you say "are not" it means that they aren't drinking orange juice right now, but that they might on another occasion. If you say they "do not", then yuo are talking about what they drink in general.
After a quick google search I have found a picture of a fish drinking orange juice: https://9gag.com/gag/ajrNWBq/fish-drinking-orange-juice-from-a-baby-bottle3
why Fish don't drink any orange juice! is wrong?? as per this article should be accepted here aswell: https://www.education.vic.gov.au/languagesonline/german/sect34/pdfs/print04.pdf
Please ask about entire sentences.
"do not", by itself, is not a correct translation of Fische trinken keinen Orangensaft.
I presume you had some other words as well, but nobody can see which ones you used or in which order.
"Orange fish juice drink do not" would not be correct, for example, even though it has all the correct words, but the problem is not the use of "do not"; it's the word order.
Can one say "Fische trinken nicht Orangensaft"? From reading through the lesson notes it seems that one would use nicht to negate the verb here rather than keinen as in "Fish do not drink orange juice", rather than "Fish drink no orange juice"... though perhaps this is a difference between the languages in terms of how we prefer to frame this sentiment and I simply need to become familiar with the idiomatic phrasings of German? Is there a mod or native speaker who could elaborate for me?
why is it keinen and not nicht?
If the verb has a direct object which is indefinite, you will generally use a form of kein to negate the sentence.
if it says " i dont drink orange juice" it will be ich trinke orangensaft nicht wont it?
No, it won't. It would be Ich trinke keinen Orangensaft. (with kein and with capital O on Orangensaft.)
Ich trinke Orangensaft nicht would negate the verb: "What I do to orange juice is not 'drink', ..." -- and the sentence would feel incomplete if you don't say what the actual verb should be.
Yes, it exists-- but in modern spoken English, the plural of fish is fish. It's one of the irregular plurals like sheep, deer, shrimp, and moose.
"Fishes" is very outdated... as in Shakespeare, or the King James Bible, and in fixed idioms such as "to sleep with the fishes".
What do you mean with "specialized"?
"fishes" is used only in specific situations -- when you are talking about multiple species of fish.
So you can't "eat fishes", for example, since you can't eat entire species at once.
Unless you're a scientist, you can probable ignore the form "fishes".
"Fisch" was used as an undefined plural
Fisch is never plural.
It can be countable (ein Fisch, zwei Fisch) when you're talking about entire animals (living or dead). Or it can be uncountable (Fisch) when you're talking about an unspecified quantity of fish meat (which might come from one animal or from several). Uncountable mass nouns are grammatically singular.
But Fisch (the mass noun) can't be the subject of the verb trinken; meat doesn't drink.
I should be correct with "fishes" because it is being use in English language as plural form of fish; ex: it can be multiple kinds of fish or multiple individual fish. Besides when you translate "Fische" then it would be fishes and only "Fisch" for fish. Please anyone, enlighten me if my understanding is wrong!
Orangensaft is "orange juice", i.e. "juice made out of oranges [the fruit]". It's uncountable.
oranger Saft is "orange juice"; i.e. juice that has the colour orange.
"an orange juice" must mean "a juice that is coloured orange", i.e. "of all the kinds of juice, one that is orange".
But the German sentence does not mean that -- because it does not have keinen orangen Saft (not ... an orange juice) but instead has keinen Orangensaft (not ... orange juice).
Thus the translation has to be "Fish do not drink orange juice", without the "an".
'Fishes' is a less common, but acceptable plural of the word fish, especially in the US. - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fish#English (See usage notes)
Perhaps more problematically, the error I got when putting 'Fishes' was that I had put the plural form rather than the singular form, which is obviously not correct. 'Fish' is also a plural form.
Yes, it is wrong.
"fish" in the singular needs an article (or other determiner). You might say "the fish does not..." or "a fish does not...", but "fish does not..." is not correct.
Unless "Fish" is the name of somebody or something.
But the German Fische is plural, meaning that it's "fish do not..." with plural "fish", not singular "fish".
No, Duo is not wrong. Fische is plural, not singular: " Fish don't drink orange juice." The modern English plural of fish is fish: one fish, seven fish, thirty-nine fish, five hundred fish. "Fishes" is an archaic plural form only found in writing before about 1750, such as in Shakespeare or the Authorised Version ("King James") of the Bible.