Today, me, a coworker, and my manager were looking at random advertisements. One ad was a picture of three fishes. My coworker named the three fishes what I thought were completely random names. I said "those are stupid names." Turns out those are my manager's kid's names. FML
Add a comment - Reply to : #
You must be logged in to be able to post comments!
Create my account
Sign in
Top comments
By
crzyry
| 6
Ydi for being a dumbass. "Fish" is a singular and plural word.
By
akiranozaki
| 0
YDI for being judgmental.
COMMENTS
By
akiranozaki
| 0
YDI for being judgmental.
Reply
admad_fml
| 1
#1 Whats judgmental about stating a fact? lol FYL for not understanding basic words :D
Reply
mushoo_fml
| 0
OP could've covered it up by saying "I mean, for fish."
Reply
brutallyhonest24
| 0
i was gunna say that #25...
Reply
teebonehead
| 0
this guy works with a total butt kisser !
Reply
dannnn_fml
| 0
awww trout, bass and salmon are manly/pretty names! not judgmental..,,
Reply
newmxr
| 0
lol agreed wit 25
By
Sakke
| 4
That is why you shouldn't bash at random.
By
sesquipedalian44
| 0
looks like your going to be job hunting :)
By
viral_fml
| 0
Say they're strange names for fish. No FML here.
By
KarelessKitten
| 0
wtf?! and I've wanted to say this for awhile....FAIL! Lame FML.
By
wrigglezeus
| 0
sleepy, sneezy and bashful the fish?
By
crzyry
| 6
Ydi for being a dumbass. "Fish" is a singular and plural word.
Reply
Intellectualist
| 0
You can use fishes as a plural, it's just not used often.
'fish n. , pl. , fish , or fishes . Any of numerous cold-blooded aquatic vertebrates of the superclass Pisces, characteristically having fins, gills'.
It says it in the dictionary, and if that's not right, I don't know what is.
'fish n. , pl. , fish , or fishes . Any of numerous cold-blooded aquatic vertebrates of the superclass Pisces, characteristically having fins, gills'.
It says it in the dictionary, and if that's not right, I don't know what is.
Reply
Tossup
| 0
You're right, both are technically acceptable.
Reply
BeeSkwaird
| 0
Still, the OP's grammar is still awful! Look at the rest of the post!
Reply
Intellectualist
| 0
I never said it wasn't, but, fishes is acceptable. Depends on the context.
Reply
liveBabylon
| 0
it's only fishs if your talking about different species of fish, 3 gold fish or 3 fishes depending if maybe one was a coi or something.
Reply
every1luvspuns
| 0
i know people will hate on me for this but i know you all thought the same so i'll say it:
"wow, first black guy to know good grammar!"
"wow, first black guy to know good grammar!"
By
blindwhisper
| 0
hahahah made my day. might have been nice names, but sounded stupid when associated to fish ... i dont see any problem here
Reply
soccer_lover_714
| 4
The problem is his grammar...
By
whhy_fml
| 1
You do realise that the plural for fish is not fishes right, were you trying to be funny?
the plural for fish is also just fish
its the same as the plural form of sheep is still sheep
the plural for fish is also just fish
its the same as the plural form of sheep is still sheep
Reply
Intellectualist
| 0
No, I wasn't just being funny.
I know how language works, and it is in the oxford dictionary, it's just a very old way of saying the plural.
It's just that language has changed, but it can be used, and is an acceptable way of pluralising fish.
I know how language works, and it is in the oxford dictionary, it's just a very old way of saying the plural.
It's just that language has changed, but it can be used, and is an acceptable way of pluralising fish.
By
i_is_a_tr00l
| 0
"...For fish."
Idiot.
Idiot.