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)
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?
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.
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!
"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
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."
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.
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.)