1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: German
  4. >
  5. "Die Kinder haben Fische."

"Die Kinder haben Fische."

Translation:The children have fish.

April 5, 2013

This discussion is locked.


in all my life of fishing catching multiple types of fish, even when multiple types are caught at the same time i have never, ever used the word fishes. That's like calling 20 sheep, 20 sheeps. if i heard someone use the word fishes, i'd be inclined to correct them, than end up in a debate about it which i would eventually lose because google says fishes is a word. the end.


What about like in the Bible with the loaves and the fishes? That's what I think of. . . Probably an archaic way of expressing it but that's ok.


It is. According to Oxford Dictionaries, the word "fishes (as a noun)" is a technical, literary term.


Yes. It is shorthand for saying "types of fish". In fact, in English many uncountable and/or unchangeable nouns take on a plural when you mean "types of" or "kinds of" in certain technical, occupational, mercantile situations. For example, there is the baker who may say, "We have three breads on special today".

And as InfiniteEngima points out, it is also literary, and as you say, archaic, used in older translations of the Bible, for instance.


Just because english doesn't have a plural form for fish it doesn't mean that other languages have the same problem.

BTW, How do you say you caught 2 of them in english? "I caught 2 fish"?


Yes, in English it would be "I caught two fish."


You use "Fishes" when you're talking about multiple types of fish :)


The phrase "Many fish" is correct when referring to many fish of the same kind. "Many fishes" is also corect when referring to many different species of fish.


@julian_buzz (in response to the first post)

You are probably right if you stay in a conversational register. However, "all the fish in the sea" is not equivalent to "all the fishes in the sea." The second phrase has the power to make you think of many different kinds of fish.

Similarly, "There are other fish in the sea," means that the one you did not catch is nothing special--there are many more (just like it) for the taking. "There are other fishes in the sea," means that even though you have seen one fish, you have not yet seen them all. There are many other interesting fish (I would say "fishes") to discover.


Just so uk it is fishes. One type of fish plural is fish many diffrent kinds of fish is fishes. Trust me i whent to collage for marine science


But not, apparently, for English.


Fishes, as in 'He fishes'


A different situation; that is the verb "to fish," not the noun fish.


That man is doing fishing; he fishes


In English, one doesn't "do fishing"; it is simply "That man is fishing." (NB: "That man is going fishing" is ok.).

Still, in "he fishes", the word "fishes" is a verb. "He fishes for fish and catches five fish."


I don't know why people are downvoting this. IT IS CORRECT.


No, it would be "He is fishing"


Fishes is correct both as a verb and as a noun. Example: "He fishes" and "He caught 2 fishes"


"He caught 2 fishes," would be a very unusual statement. Far more common is "he caught 2 fish."

(Even more common is "he caught no fish, but claims he almost caught 20 fish.")


You were right, until bringing up tax-dodging multi-conglomerate/monopoly Google, they do not know anything like everything!


We are already taught that we have to add es in the words which end with "sh" so where is the problem to say fishes ? I guess letteraly We can say 20 fishes ...


"fish" is a non-count noun, normally you don't use plural. You say "I usually eat two fish per week." (i.e. two fish of the same species)

However, it exists the word "fishes". But it means "different species of fish", like salmon and trout etc.


No, fish is NOT a non-count noun; we can count as many as we want-- one fish, three fish, 500 fish. However, it IS a noun with an irregular plural, just like sheep, deer, elk, moose, shrimp.


Somebody was stating that "fishes" would be the archaic form in English. I think "fish" is the archaic form. A lot of nouns that don´t follow the -s rule in English for plurals do so because the are remnants of Old English which was pretty much like German in terms of grammar. So, mouse - mice, fish - fish, goose - geese, man - men etc... Some even follow the "umlaut rule", meaning that they change a sound in the middle of the word.

Edit: in fact the form "fishes" seems to be older, see replies bellow


The regular plural is in fact older.



Funny, this might be true... It is usually the other way around :)) http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fish "The older form fishes is still used, when referring to different kinds of fish (freshwater fishes of the British Isles)."


Also (at least where I'm from in England) fishes is sometimes used when talking to children, I guess to make it sound cuter. Same with horsies as a plural of horse.


We say fishies in Australia ^^


We actually don't.


So in this excercise people are discussing English more than German.


that's very good; so, I'm practizing both languages!


Why not, 'are having' fish? The children (THEY) are having fish would be correct yes?


"having fish" in English implies that you are eating fish. "We are having fish for supper tonight" = we are (or will be) eating fish for supper.


I agree, but I believe my translation could still be warranted? What would you say for 'we are having fish' instead?


If you want to say that you own fish = We have fish.
If you want to say that you are eating fish = We are having fish.

Only the sentence "We have fish" includes the verb haben in German = Wir haben Fische. Haben doesn't work for eating (as is my understanding...not native) in German. So with the given Duo sentence "Die Kinder haben Fische" you can't translate it to mean "The kids are having fish" (The kids are eating fish). Does that help? I'm not 100% sure I answered your question.


This is maybe off-topic, but i really like to read your replies and hints... :)


But why in other excercises present and present continuous are both considered correct "have" & "are having"?


Because the verb 'have' is a static verb, therefore, you don't use it in the present continuos unless you want to give it another meaning such as the example the other person gave you.


You'll have to point/link to specific sentences so I can (possibly) offer explanations, or so that the contributors can (possibly) fix the sentence.


What's the rationale here: "Die Kinder haben Fische", but "Die Katzen essen Fisch". Is there something in particular about the German language that I'm to learn in this instance or do we simply have two inconsistent uses of the word fish? (which we all realize can be either singular or plural in English) I'm good either way - just curious if there's a legitimate German lesson to take from it.


I believe that "Fische" is referring to multiple of the animal fish. If "Die Kinder haben Fische," they are holding/owning more than one animal fish. We could also say, "Das Kind hat einen Fisch," with the singular "Fisch."

If the children are eating fish, however, they are eating the meat fish, which is a mass noun and so has no plural, hence we have to use the singular "Fisch."


Is it fish or fishes? I'm confused. I thought fisch means fish and Fische means fishes??


The normal plural of "fish" is just "fish." "Fishes" generally refers to multiple species of fish, not just multiple individual fish.


I thought "fish" is the same word for singular and plural?


It is, but "fishes" is occasionally used also.


Are there any rules for making things plural?


Says there's no real pattern but thanks


Try with "tips and notes" option... :)


how to differentiate between fische and fisch ?


"Fisch" is pronounced like the english word "fish" but "Fische" is pronounced like fisher with silent "r", I think.


Is there any difference in pronunciation between "Fisch" and "Fische"?


It might be hard to hear, but 'Fische' has an 'eh' sound at the end.


So, in looking for a rule for plurals (add an "s" or "es" in English, for example), why do some words add an "e" (Fische) and some an "er" (Kinder)?


So if you place an 'e' at the end of a noun, does it become plural?


Some words add "-e" to make them plural, but others form them in other ways (in which case adding an "-e" would just make them a non-word). There's a wide variety of ways to form plurals, and you kind of have to learn them word by word.

For example, der Hund / die Hunde, die Katze / die Katzen, der Vogel / die Vögel, der Baum / die Bäume, das Kaninchen / die Kaninchen.

There are some guidelines, though; try this site if you're interested.


Does "habe" have the meaning of "eat" in German? Or it is just "have", the meaning of "ownership"?


In German it is only ownership, it's only in English that it has the double meaning. Hope that helps.


The children are having and have fishes is correct since this is a beginning level


Are there other German nouns or words that, like in English, may be the same word for both singular and plural? Or will they always have a different ending? Like "Fisch" is different from "Fische" whereas, in English, "Fish" and "Fish" are the same word


Absolutely, there are many words that don't change in the plural. Examples are "Löffel," "Lehrer," and any word ending in "-chen" ("Mädchen," "Eichhörnchen," etc.).


Okay got it! Danke!


Got fish? How can I know they got a fish not have a fish?????


Do you mean "received a fish"? That would be "Sie haben einen Fisch erhalten" oder "Sie haben einen Fisch bekommen."


How come this can't be "...are having fish" ? What is the rule here?


That would work for most verbs. ("Die Kinder suchen Fische" = "The children look for / are looking for fish.")

But some verbs in English don't really work well in the progressive. Mostly they're verbs like "see" or "like" or "have" that show something that you're doing passively rather than a deliberate action (e.g., "look at" can be progressive, but "see" can't).

Some of these verbs have different, more active meanings when used in the progressive. "... are having fish" actually means that they're eating fish or going to eat fish as a meal, which is not what the German sentence says.

So translating into the progressive form is usually fine; "haben" is just not a good candidate for this.


Well, its definitely confusing.. anyone please recommend some grammar book for German? Thanks in advance..


Yes. Schaum’s Outline of German Grammar is very thorough and in its 5th ed.


why are we using "die" for "kind"? when "Kind" is Neuter and "Die" is feminine.


No, we use "das" for "Kind" (singular) but "die" for "Kinder" because "Kinder" is plural and "die" is used for every plural


No die is used for kind. Das is used for Mädchen.


I thought all plurals in German were feminine? How come 'Fische' is masculine?


Fisch is masculine. All plurals are plural. They don't become feminine. The plural nouns often take the same definite and indefinite article form as a feminine noun, but they don't become feminine.


Cool that makes sense! Danke :)


How is the kid has fish wrong


"Die Kinder haben Fishe" means "the children have fish" because "die Kinder" is plural and "haben" is the third person plural conjugation of the verb "haben", to have. The child has fish would be "das Kind hat Fische". (singular noun, third person singular verb conjugation)

If you don't recognize a noun as singular or plural, you can always check the verb ending for a clue.


exactly sometimes you can associate German grammar with English grammar.. In English you would say "We have a lot of fishes" lol you would probably be thinking to yourself "This person's grammar is horrible". Fish is both plural and singular without changing the actual word in English. Same here in German, specifically this word only though


It's not the same in German. The singular is "(der) Fisch" and the plural is "(die) Fische", regardless of whether you're talking about species or not.

Learn German in just 5 minutes a day. For free.