Crossword Help Forum
Forum Rules

btw rossim, isn't "fish" odd? One fish, a few fishes, lots of fish!

It looks as though both are acceptable.

http://biblehub.com/matthew/15-34.htm

Congratulation, ixion.

Oh! Scratch that. Force of habit.

Congratulations, peterm, and thanks, ixion. Thanks for the votes, BigBad and mattrom, and for the mentions, chrise and jws.

chrise: I used a plural definition in my clue. To think that it might have ruined my chances...

Would have been better as "bottom-feeder", aristo!

Actually a lot of fish have the same plural as singular; however Chambers didn't accept "sprat" as plural. The only supports I found were a couple of lesser known online dictionaries. I don't have to hand any other sources - what do other dictionaries say?

My ancient forty-pound Webster's doesn't specify, but the use of the "singular" for the plural for fish (fishes) is so common that it may have been deemed unnecessary. Everyone says "the pickerel are rising" or "the herring are running"; I really don't think I've ever heard "herrings" or "pickerels".

......but have you heard "sprats"?

One definite (I think!) - sardine/sardines.

Congratulation, peterms.

Yeah, there are exceptions in usage, and sardines is one of them. It's funny how we do that instinctively. Sprat just doesn't sound awkward as a plural form, whereas sardine does.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sprat

I usually consider wiktionary reliable enough in these matters...I note Chambers also doesn't specify "herring" as a plural.

Just to clarify, I do accept that there are references that support "sprat" as plural as well as singular!