1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Turkish
  4. >
  5. "Balıklar ve kuşlar"

"Balıklar ve kuşlar"

Translation:Fish and birds

April 29, 2015



Why not fishes and birds??


Because "fish" is uncountable in English.


Not quite. It's not uncountable unless you're talking about the meat. It is countable when talking about the live animals, but the plural form is simply identical to the singular form. We can say "five fish" and "fish are", but with an uncountable noun, we cannot do this: "five rice" doesn't work, neither does "rice are".

fish (meat) → uncountable
fish (animal) → countable, plural: fish (individual fish), fishes (types of fish)


is it really uncountable?


That being said, "fishes" is rarely correct in English. It is really only used to distinguish different species of fish. (I saw 7 fishes=I saw 7 species of fish). If you just saw individual fish, you would use "fish" as the plural.


I'm a native English speaker, and I thought "fishes and birds" was a better translation than "fish and birds" since it was plural in the Turkish version. Just my thought. But it was counted correct for "fishes and birds" anyways.


Fishes is a type of "super plural" that means multiple groups or types of fish. It's like person vs people vs peoples, people is more than one person, and peoples is more than one people.

I don't think it works in Turkish so to the mods, would baliklarlar work or does it sound just as silly as I think it does?


Balıklar is completely normal Turkish. The fact that the plural is usually identical in English is a quirk of English, not some kind of linguistic universal.


If fish is in bag or some otherthing than it maybe as counted noun


Nope. Catch four fish, put them in a bag, aquarium, pool, whatever, it is still "fish" not fishes. Remember title of Dr. Seuss book "One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish" and stick with "fish". Same applies to "sheep" and "deer".


I really can't understand the reasoning behind this, I mean considering fish as a non-count. When you can say one fish, two fishes, and so on, then why it must remain uncountable? :D


It is not that fish is uncountable. It is just that the plural of fish in English is one of the exceptions where the plural and the singular are the same. Just as Gluadys above said...


When the Turkish a is pronounced, it sometimes sounds like the a of car, sometimes like that of can , sometimes like that of call. I suppose it's all correct, but it sure gets me confused. (English does the same of course, but then Turkish spelling is said to be consistent.)


In what Turkish word did you hear the 'a' sound from "can"? It should be the sound of "ah", like in "father", naturally when an 'r' comes after this it sounds like "ahr", like in "car". However, in American English the 'a' in can is totally different, unless you mean in British English? https://www.duolingo.com/comment/7702767


Sorry, I can't remember which words I had in mind at the time. But I do notice that Turkish pronunciation (or DL Turkish pronunciation anyway - I have no other sources) sounds very different. The o often sounds as ö for instance. I'm not at all saying it's wrong; it occurs in many languages. But is does surprise and confuse me somewhat. My theory at the moment (no more than that) is that in words without vowel harmony (loans, mostly), speakers still tend to create this harmony.


If you hear a sound like "a" in "can", that is a Turkish "e". It is pronounced like the "a" in "can" before "l", "r", "m" and "n".

If you hear a sound like the "a" in "call" (unless you mean with a strong American accent, in which case it'd be more or less identical to the "a" in "car"), that would be a Turkish "o". There is not a lot of variation in the pronunciation of Turkish vowels.


Good name for a restaurant!


I came here for comments to see how many people need to brush up on their English first before judging this sentence


I thought it was countable


What's the difference between the pronunciation of -lar and -ler?


-lar like in "lard"

-ler like in "air"


Lar is pronounced like l/a/r

Ler is pronounced like l/e/r


How do you decide if you should add "ler" or "lar"?


How can I know if I should put -ler or -lar?


Fish istisnadır,Fishes olmaz!


I cannot master the final 'r' on the sound when it comes through as an 'shh'. Why is this? I thought Turkish always had 'rolled 'r'. The kuşlar doesn't show this but the baliklar word does.


I have heard this in real life. The first time I heard it was from a native Turk speaking English. He ended English words with that faint "zh" sound. I thought it was some sort of error. But I hear it from Turks speaking Turkish, too. And like you, Shirley, I cannot reproduce this exact sound!


how can i know the difference between 1- The fishes and the Birds 2- Fishes and Birds

my purpose is " the" or without "the" in plural




"Balıklar ve kuşlar" Translation: Fish and birds

how can i know the difference between 1- The fishes and the Birds 2- Fishes and Birds

my purpose is " the" or without "the" in plural

"Balıklar ve kuşlar." - The fish & the birds. - Correct.

"Balık ve kuşlar" - Fish & the birds. - Correct.

"Balık ve kuş" - The fish & the bird. - Correct.

"Balık ve kuş" - Fish & bird. - Correct.

Read this: https://www.duolingo.com/comment/7738412

Thank you.


guys how baliklar mean fish , isn't is fishes?


In English, "fish" is an unusual noun: Both the singular and plural is "fish." It's the same with a few other English words: "sheep" (one sheep, two sheep); "moose" (one moose, a herd of moose). Occasionally, we would say "fishes," but it's very uncommon. You cannot go wrong with using fish: "How many fish did you catch yesterday?" "I was lucky. I caught five big fish."


It's wrong It should write fishes


I got this as a listening exercise and absentmindedly answered in English instead of Turkish - in other courses it will detect that and make me try again, but in this course it detects that but marks me wrong for the exercise anyway! :( Can that be changed?


why does she pronounce the "-lar " as there is an "sh" sound at the end of the word? is it right or it is just a computer mistake ?!


Fishes = balıklar


I fail so often because i simply don't/can't match the recorded voice to any learnt word


wait why does it say fish only?


isn't it supposed to be fishes* and birds


Fishes not fish


Why not the fish should be fishes??


It s fishes not fish.lar is plurel


Please read the other comments before commenting. Your observation is understandable, but incorrect.


Why isnt fishes? Also why we add a "ş" for birds?


There is no -ş added. The singular is "kuş."

That being said, "fishes" is rarely correct in English. It is really only used to distinguish different species of fish. (I saw 7 fishes=I saw 7 species of fish). If you just saw individual fish, you would use "fish" as the plural.


The translation cannot be singular for the fish. Balıklar means fishes.


In English, we say "I saw two fish." So balıklar can mean fish, since fish is plural or singular.


Interesting that I can reply to a deactivated user. I don't know if the programmers intentionally included that feature but it obviously has its benefits.

Regardless, I just wanted to add that in English, we can say "fish" or "fishes" as a noun. However, when "fishes" is used, it is referring to a species of fish and with this phrase here -- balıklar ve kuşlar -- I can see it referring to a species. Nevertheless, if this were a heading for a category, you would likely see "Fish and Birds" rather than "Fishes and Birds" (even if what is about to follow includes information on species of fish specifically). As for its use in the plural, here's an example from a fairly reputable publication in the United States -- U.S. News & World Report:

"Those most in jeopardy were the smaller fishes with specialised eating and sheltering habits."

I didn't find the example myself, nor did I source check it, but I have no reason to doubt the example or where it came from. It came from the following website:


I don't know much about the site or who manages it, but the information it provides appears to coincide with what I've been taught about English, so for any of you reverse learners out there, you may want to add it as a reference.

For the record, my answer was "fishes and birds" and it was considered correct.


Yes, the basic rule in English is that the plural of "fish" is "fish". Similarly the plural of "sheep" is "sheep" and the plural of "deer" is "deer". But "fishes" is used when distinguishing different kinds/types/species of fish, as in the citation above. So the preferable translation here is "fish and birds" but "fishes and birds" would be acceptable in some limited contexts. (I am a native English speaker who has taught English grammar for many years.)


No fish in the plural can be fish

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