> it’s also largely irrelevant in terms of nutrition, thus the generic term fish
In English. To assume that marine molluscs or cnidarians are "a type of fishes" is a mistake that the majority of languages did not commit.
For millions of people shellfish is an excellent, healthy, nutritive and easily available food. Very far from "irrelevant". This point of view is (probably, I could be wrong) not so widespread in the anglosphere, but this is just a cultural thing. More for us.
If cooked properly, Mussels, crabs, lobsters and sea urchins are delicious and highly appreciated among connoisseurs, that's for sure.
It’s not a linguist mistake, it’s overloading a single word which happens a lot in most languages. The same thing is going on in English when referring to a group or generic unknown people as male.
Anyway, I will accept this as a backhanded agreement and leave it at that.
In English. To assume that marine molluscs or cnidarians are "a type of fishes" is a mistake that the majority of languages did not commit.
For millions of people shellfish is an excellent, healthy, nutritive and easily available food. Very far from "irrelevant". This point of view is (probably, I could be wrong) not so widespread in the anglosphere, but this is just a cultural thing. More for us.
If cooked properly, Mussels, crabs, lobsters and sea urchins are delicious and highly appreciated among connoisseurs, that's for sure.