3 ms·

Is it like fish and fishes? fish = plural for many of a single kind of fish fishes = plural for multiple kinds of fish So by analogy: code = any amount of c

Is it like fish and fishes? fish = plural for many of a single kind of fish fishes = plural for multiple kinds of fish So by analogy: code = any amount of code from a single project codes = plural for code from multiple projects I'm American and this is how I use code/codes, so I'm curious whether you make the same distinction, or if you always use codes.

andybak 6y ago
Brit here. It's always "code" and "codes" sounds like something a non-technical middle manager would say and get sniggered about behind his back.
eloisius 6y ago
Sounds like saying “the sands from beaches around Florida” to pluralize code to me. How much is a single code?
klodolph 6y ago
I’m American, this is just my take on it. I don’t think fish / fishes is quite right. Look up “code” in the dictionary and you get at least two different senses of the word: 1. System of substituting letters/words/symbols/etc. for letters/words/symbols/etc, e.g. “morse code”. Countable noun. 2. Computing program instructions. Uncountable noun. This is not like fish / fishes, because “fish” is countable—I can have one fish or two fish. When talking about computer programming instructions, I cannot have one code or two codes, but I can have one line of code or two lines of code. Just like I cannot have a bowl of one thousand rice, but I can have a bowl of one thousand grains of rice. Rice is “uncountable” in the grammatical sense even though it seems like you should be able to count it. In Indian english, my understanding is that for the second sense above, “codes” is correct and “code” is incorrect. In that sense it is probably similar to “data”, in the historical usage where “data” was plural (in modern usage, “data” is often considered singular). So, “The codes are on my hard drive.” makes sense to Indian english speakers, and “The data are on my hard drive.” makes sense in historical (say, early 20th-century) English. There is a singular version of data, “datum”, but rarely used.
- BossingAround 6y ago
  "When referring to more than one species of fish, especially in a scientific context, you can use fishes as the plural." [1] It's the same as peoples... [2] [1] https://www.grammarly.com/blog/fish-fishes/ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/fish-fishes/ [2] https://www.grammarly.com/blog/persons-people-peoples/ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/persons-people-peoples/
  - klodolph 6y ago
    That’s a different sense of the word “fish”.
renewiltord 6y ago
It's closer to how some dialects of English will say "Do you want to come with?" and consider that a complete sentence. FWIW, there is no harm in the correction. "codes" is correct in Indian English, Indian English is a variant just as much as Australian English is, and people abroad will auto-bucket you as less intelligent than someone speaking more common forms. So it is still a smart action to switch yourself to the more common forms.

andybak 6y ago

Brit here. It's always "code" and "codes" sounds like something a non-technical middle manager would say and get sniggered about behind his back.

eloisius 6y ago

Sounds like saying “the sands from beaches around Florida” to pluralize code to me. How much is a single code?

klodolph 6y ago

I’m American, this is just my take on it. I don’t think fish / fishes is quite right. Look up “code” in the dictionary and you get at least two different senses of the word: 1. System of substituting letters/words/symbols/etc. for letters/words/symbols/etc, e.g. “morse code”. Countable noun. 2. Computing program instructions. Uncountable noun. This is not like fish / fishes, because “fish” is countable—I can have one fish or two fish. When talking about computer programming instructions, I cannot have one code or two codes, but I can have one line of code or two lines of code. Just like I cannot have a bowl of one thousand rice, but I can have a bowl of one thousand grains of rice. Rice is “uncountable” in the grammatical sense even though it seems like you should be able to count it. In Indian english, my understanding is that for the second sense above, “codes” is correct and “code” is incorrect. In that sense it is probably similar to “data”, in the historical usage where “data” was plural (in modern usage, “data” is often considered singular). So, “The codes are on my hard drive.” makes sense to Indian english speakers, and “The data are on my hard drive.” makes sense in historical (say, early 20th-century) English. There is a singular version of data, “datum”, but rarely used.

BossingAround 6y ago
"When referring to more than one species of fish, especially in a scientific context, you can use fishes as the plural." [1] It's the same as peoples... [2] [1] https://www.grammarly.com/blog/fish-fishes/ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/fish-fishes/ [2] https://www.grammarly.com/blog/persons-people-peoples/ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/persons-people-peoples/
- klodolph 6y ago
  That’s a different sense of the word “fish”.

renewiltord 6y ago

It's closer to how some dialects of English will say "Do you want to come with?" and consider that a complete sentence. FWIW, there is no harm in the correction. "codes" is correct in Indian English, Indian English is a variant just as much as Australian English is, and people abroad will auto-bucket you as less intelligent than someone speaking more common forms. So it is still a smart action to switch yourself to the more common forms.