> <roboti...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Keep at it; you may see a pattern emerge.
Some do, some don't. Minnows, Miller's Thumbs, Stone loaches,
Sticklebacks. But as you point out, a lot don't. Pike, Rudd, Dace,
Lamprey.
Mark Wallace - 30 Apr 2007 17:37 GMT
>> <roboti...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> Sticklebacks. But as you point out, a lot don't. Pike, Rudd, Dace,
> Lamprey.
I didn't say it's a solid pattern -- it's herringbone.
Leslie Danks - 30 Apr 2007 18:21 GMT
[...]
> Some do, some don't. Minnows, Miller's Thumbs, Stone loaches,
> Sticklebacks. But as you point out, a lot don't. Pike, Rudd, Dace,
> Lamprey.
But King Henry I of England is said to have died from eating "a surfeit of
lampreys".
<http://www.sheppardsoftware.com/content/animals/animals/fish/lamprey.htm>

Signature
Les
Flying Tortoise - 30 Apr 2007 19:31 GMT
> roboti...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> --
> Les
With the majority of fauna (and indeed flora) the singular can be used
as the plural quite legitimately even if there is a 'normal' plural
available. You could have a house infested with cockroach and beetle,
for example (though not, I suspect, with flea, fly, or louse). Or you
might hunt fox and pheasant, and, (once upon a time) elephant,
giraffe, and tiger.