Talk:lobster

Tea room discussion
It wouldn't bother me to say "we caught many lobster" or "we caught many lobsters". Googling finds examples of "many lobster" that are using lobster as a plural (as well as some false hits 'like many lobster lovers'). Should we add that lobster can be used as the plural and if so how to we indicate that? In a usage note? RJFJR 14:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This applies to nearly all sea food and fish(es) BTW. Perhaps we could have a template for this? It would certainly be alright to put a usage note AFAIC -- A LGRIF  talk 15:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * One worthwhile item for such a usage not would be to indicate the lower level of acceptability of plural verbs with "lobster" referring to the living creatures, especially when still in the wild. In what contexts is "The lobster are running" acceptable?
 * A quick look at the first page of a basic Google search for "lobster are" gives:- 1. farmed lobster are considered to be pale in colour. 2. Most species of lobster are caught in pots or traps. 3. Maine Lobster are better then Canadain (sic) Lobster. That's just for starters. A proper search would certainly pull up many good examples, I reckon. -- A LGRIF  talk 16:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Example 2 is specious, since the verb refers to "species" as its noun, not "lobster". -DrGaellon | Talk 01:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I estimate that more than 90% of the almost 650 raw b.g.c. hits (limited and full preview only) for "lobster are" are not hits for the plural use of lobster. More than 90% of the almost 800 hits for "lobsters are" are hits for the plural. Thus "lobsters" would seem to be ten times more common in b.g.c. as a plural. "Two lobsters" gets more than 600 raw b.g.c. hits almost solely true plural use. In the first 50 hits of "two lobster" (of 280), I found no true plural use. I conclude that "lobster" is a rare and possibly less preferred plural. I don't know what the results would be for shellfish, marine mammals, true fish, or other large aquatic animals, let alone plants and small animals. DCDuring TALK 16:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this can apply to most wild animals. The invariant plural seems to suggest a way of relating to the animal as a more abstract entity.  "There are bear in the mountains"  may be usefully distinct from "there are bears in the mountains"; one refers to the general fact that the mountains are bear habitat, while the other would, in some contexts, indicate the presence of specific bears in some specific area.  Likewise, "there are lobster in the funnel" suggests that it is lobster (by the pound), and not individual lobsters, with which one is concerned.  Presumably related to this, but complicating the matter, many prominent wild animals -- deer, moose, fish, salmon -- have invariant plurals only.  Visviva 16:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Should we have separate senses to support the distinction? Alternatively, we could add it to the notional list of "subjects we should have appendices for, to be linked to in usage notes", which list is stored in our collective and individual "circular files" or "bit buckets". DCDuring TALK 16:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)