What does the fish say

What Does the Fish Say?

Picture a wild animal that makes noise. Perhaps you’re thinking of a chirping songbird, a bellowing whale, or a howling wolf. But I’d wager you’re absolutely not thinking about a fish.

Some fish species use sound to communicate, just like marine mammals or any number of terrestrial species. And these vocalizations could be key for scientists studying both fish and their freshwater ecosystems. A new paper from Australian and European scientists outlines how these vocalizations — and even the sounds of a fish’s river habitat — could be key for freshwater management and conservation.

Drumming & Stridulations

Related Articles

Aristotle was the first person to write about fish vocalizations in his Historia Animalium more than 2,000 years ago. Fish don’t have vocal chords, so they vocalize using two different anatomical methods. The first is when a fish uses its muscles to drum or vibrate its swim bladder, an internal organ that helps fish control their buoyancy. “It’s similar to if you were to scrape your hand across a balloon, you get a squeaking noise,” says Linke. The second method is akin to insect stridulation, where the fish produces sound by rubbing its pectoral fin against the pectoral girdle. “If you have a cheese grater and you run a spoon over it you get a gruuunk sound,” says Linke, “and that’s stridulation.”

But fish aren’t the only thing you’ll hear if you stick your head — or better yet a hydrophone — underwater. Some bodies of water also have an insect chorus, produced by species like water boatmen and beetles. “And in flowing rivers and gurgling creeks, you really hear the gurgling of the creek a lot,” says Linke. “Its interesting, because you can use that gurgling as one of the indicators of river health.”

Unlocking the Potential for Freshwater Ecoacoustics

So far, most acoustic research has focused on either terrestrial or marine ecosystems and species. In their new paper, Linke and his coauthors propose that acoustic monitoring could be equally useful to scientists and managers who work on freshwater systems.

Acoustics could also be used to monitor the spread of invasive fish species or judge the effectiveness of eradication efforts. Another group of researchers is working to identify the signature vocalizations of invasive tilapia in Australian waters, while Linke’s group is seeking funds to help eradicate invasive catfish in New Zealand.

While Linke and his coauthors aren’t aware of any direct use of acoustics for recreational fisheries, he says that it would be possible to use this technology to monitor populations and measure recruitment following restocking efforts.

A Call to Crowdsource Freshwater Soundscapes

Acoustic monitoring brings with it several advantages over more traditional data-collection methods, both on land and underwater. It’s often cheaper than intensive biodiversity sampling, can collect data continuously over long periods of time, and avoids various types of sampling bias. But there are still a few challenges that need to be overcome before this technology can fulfill its potential for freshwater science and conservation.

Scientific Resources

“One of the key challenges is that there is no big database that you can go to,” says Linke. “There are fantastic researchers around the globe doing fantastic work… but none of these calls have been submitted to a database where people can reference it.” One of the premier acoustic libraries in the world, the Macaulay Library at Cornell University, has more than 120,000 recordings of birds but just 929 recordings of fish, most of which were collected before 1980.

This means that scientists like Linke have to painstakingly work out exactly what species produce what sounds. “We have to throw insects in buckets and let them sing by themselves,” he says. Linke is currently seeking funds to create a catalogue of calls for all 34 species of Australian grunters. He says that if researchers conducting similar work contributed to a global database, it would help crowdsource valuable data for future research.

“The second big challenge is really to derive links between sounds and ecosystem health,” says Linke. For example, insects like beetles and water boatmen are already used as indicators for disturbance, including high nutrient levels. Acoustics could detect an increase in insect activity, potentially signaling a decline in river health, but first scientists would need to know just how much insect noise occurs in a healthy river. “We’re trying to construct reference conditions on how a river should sound,” says Linke.

If scientists can overcome those obstacles, ecoacoustics is poised to transform freshwater ecology, one fish grunt at a time.

Thank you to CGS contributor Solomon David for his assistance sourcing examples of vocalizing species from North America.

Justine E. Hausheer is an award-winning science writer for The Nature Conservancy, covering the innovative research conducted by the Conservancy’s scientists in the Asia Pacific region. She has a degree from Princeton University and a master’s in Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting from New York University. Justine’s favorite stories take her into pristine forests, desolate deserts, or far-flung islands to report on field research as it’s happening. When not writing, you can find her traipsing after birds, attempting to fish, and exploring the wild places around her home in Brisbane, Australia. More from Justine

Для вашего удобства мы встроили словарь в английский текст сказки «О рыбаке и его жене». Чтобы увидеть перевод слова и прослушать произношение, просто нажмите мышкой на незнакомое слово. По ходу чтения вы можете добавлять любые слова в свой личный электронный словарь, чтобы позже выучить.

There was once a fisherman who lived with his wife in a pigsty, close by the seaside. The fisherman used to go out all day long a-fishing; and one day, as he sat on the shore with his rod, looking at the sparkling waves and watching his line, all on a sudden his float was dragged away deep into the water: and in drawing it up he pulled out a great fish. But the fish said, ‘Pray let me live! I am not a real fish; I am an enchanted prince: put me in the water again, and let me go!’ ‘Oh, ho!’ said the man, ‘you need not make so many words about the matter; I will have nothing to do with a fish that can talk: so swim away, sir, as soon as you please!’ Then he put him back into the water, and the fish darted straight down to the bottom, and left a long streak of blood behind him on the wave.

When the fisherman went home to his wife in the pigsty, he told her how he had caught a great fish, and how it had told him it was an enchanted prince, and how, on hearing it speak, he had let it go again. ‘Did not you ask it for anything?’ said the wife, ‘we live very wretchedly here, in this nasty dirty pigsty; do go back and tell the fish we want a snug little cottage.’

The fisherman did not much like the business: however, he went to the seashore; and when he came back there the water looked all yellow and green. And he stood at the water’s edge, and said:

‘O man of the sea!
Hearken to me!
My wife Ilsabill
Will have her own will,
And hath sent me to beg a boon of thee!’

Then the fish came swimming to him, and said, ‘Well, what is her will? What does your wife want?’ ‘Ah!’ said the fisherman, ‘she says that when I had caught you, I ought to have asked you for something before I let you go; she does not like living any longer in the pigsty, and wants a snug little cottage.’ ‘Go home, then,’ said the fish; ‘she is in the cottage already!’ So the man went home, and saw his wife standing at the door of a nice trim little cottage. ‘Come in, come in!’ said she; ‘is not this much better than the filthy pigsty we had?’ And there was a parlour, and a bedchamber, and a kitchen; and behind the cottage there was a little garden, planted with all sorts of flowers and fruits; and there was a courtyard behind, full of ducks and chickens. ‘Ah!’ said the fisherman, ‘how happily we shall live now!’ ‘We will try to do so, at least,’ said his wife.

Everything went right for a week or two, and then Dame Ilsabill said, ‘Husband, there is not near room enough for us in this cottage; the courtyard and the garden are a great deal too small; I should like to have a large stone castle to live in: go to the fish again and tell him to give us a castle.’ ‘Wife,’ said the fisherman, ‘I don’t like to go to him again, for perhaps he will be angry; we ought to be easy with this pretty cottage to live in.’ ‘Nonsense!’ said the wife; ‘he will do it very willingly, I know; go along and try!’

The fisherman went, but his heart was very heavy: and when he came to the sea, it looked blue and gloomy, though it was very calm; and he went close to the edge of the waves, and said:

‘O man of the sea!
Hearken to me!
My wife Ilsabill
Will have her own will,
And hath sent me to beg a boon of thee!’

‘Well, what does she want now?’ said the fish. ‘Ah!’ said the man, dolefully, ‘my wife wants to live in a stone castle.’ ‘Go home, then,’ said the fish; ‘she is standing at the gate of it already.’ So away went the fisherman, and found his wife standing before the gate of a great castle. ‘See,’ said she, ‘is not this grand?’ With that they went into the castle together, and found a great many servants there, and the rooms all richly furnished, and full of golden chairs and tables; and behind the castle was a garden, and around it was a park half a mile long, full of sheep, and goats, and hares, and deer; and in the courtyard were stables and cow-houses. ‘Well,’ said the man, ‘now we will live cheerful and happy in this beautiful castle for the rest of our lives.’ ‘Perhaps we may,’ said the wife; ‘but let us sleep upon it, before we make up our minds to that.’ So they went to bed.

The next morning when Dame Ilsabill awoke it was broad daylight, and she jogged the fisherman with her elbow, and said, ‘Get up, husband, and bestir yourself, for we must be king of all the land.’ ‘Wife, wife,’ said the man, ‘why should we wish to be the king? I will not be king.’ ‘Then I will,’ said she. ‘But, wife,’ said the fisherman, ‘how can you be king—the fish cannot make you a king?’ ‘Husband,’ said she, ‘say no more about it, but go and try! I will be king.’ So the man went away quite sorrowful to think that his wife should want to be king. This time the sea looked a dark grey colour, and was overspread with curling waves and the ridges of foam as he cried out:

‘O man of the sea!
Hearken to me!
My wife Ilsabill
Will have her own will,
And hath sent me to beg a boon of thee!’

‘Well, what would she have now?’ said the fish. ‘Alas!’ said the poor man, ‘my wife wants to be king.’ ‘Go home,’ said the fish; ‘she is king already.’

Then the fisherman went home; and as he came close to the palace he saw a troop of soldiers, and heard the sound of drums and trumpets. And when he went in he saw his wife sitting on a throne of gold and diamonds, with a golden crown upon her head; and on each side of her stood six fair maidens, each a head taller than the other. ‘Well, wife,’ said the fisherman, ‘are you king?’ ‘Yes,’ said she, ‘I am king.’ And when he had looked at her for a long time, he said, ‘Ah, wife! what a fine thing it is to be king! Now we shall never have anything more to wish for as long as we live.’ ‘I don’t know how that may be,’ said she; ‘never is a long time. I am king, it is true; but I begin to be tired of that, and I think I should like to be emperor.’ ‘Alas, wife! why should you wish to be emperor?’ said the fisherman. ‘Husband,’ said she, ‘go to the fish! I say I will be emperor.’ ‘Ah, wife!’ replied the fisherman, ‘the fish cannot make an emperor, I am sure, and I should not like to ask him for such a thing.’ ‘I am king,’ said Ilsabill, ‘and you are my slave; so go at once!’

So the fisherman was forced to go; and he muttered as he went along, ‘This will come to no good, it is too much to ask; the fish will be tired at last, and then we shall be sorry for what we have done.’ He soon came to the seashore; and the water was quite black and muddy, and a mighty whirlwind blew over the waves and rolled them about, but he went as near as he could to the water’s brink, and said:

‘O man of the sea!
Hearken to me!
My wife Ilsabill
Will have her own will,
And hath sent me to beg a boon of thee!’

‘What would she have now?’ said the fish. ‘Ah!’ said the fisherman, ‘she wants to be emperor.’ ‘Go home,’ said the fish; ‘she is emperor already.’

So he went home again; and as he came near he saw his wife Ilsabill sitting on a very lofty throne made of solid gold, with a great crown on her head full two yards high; and on each side of her stood her guards and attendants in a row, each one smaller than the other, from the tallest giant down to a little dwarf no bigger than my finger. And before her stood princes, and dukes, and earls: and the fisherman went up to her and said, ‘Wife, are you emperor?’ ‘Yes,’ said she, ‘I am emperor.’ ‘Ah!’ said the man, as he gazed upon her, ‘what a fine thing it is to be emperor!’ ‘Husband,’ said she, ‘why should we stop at being emperor? I will be pope next.’ ‘O wife, wife!’ said he, ‘how can you be pope? there is but one pope at a time in Christendom.’ ‘Husband,’ said she, ‘I will be pope this very day.’ ‘But,’ replied the husband, ‘the fish cannot make you pope.’ ‘What nonsense!’ said she; ‘if he can make an emperor, he can make a pope: go and try him.’

So the fisherman went. But when he came to the shore the wind was raging and the sea was tossed up and down in boiling waves, and the ships were in trouble, and rolled fearfully upon the tops of the billows. In the middle of the heavens there was a little piece of blue sky, but towards the south all was red, as if a dreadful storm was rising. At this sight the fisherman was dreadfully frightened, and he trembled so that his knees knocked together: but still he went down near to the shore, and said:

‘O man of the sea!
Hearken to me!
My wife Ilsabill
Will have her own will,
And hath sent me to beg a boon of thee!’

‘What does she want now?’ said the fish. ‘Ah!’ said the fisherman, ‘my wife wants to be pope.’ ‘Go home,’ said the fish; ‘she is pope already.’

Then the fisherman went home, and found Ilsabill sitting on a throne that was two miles high. And she had three great crowns on her head, and around her stood all the pomp and power of the Church. And on each side of her were two rows of burning lights, of all sizes, the greatest as large as the highest and biggest tower in the world, and the least no larger than a small rushlight. ‘Wife,’ said the fisherman, as he looked at all this greatness, ‘are you pope?’ ‘Yes,’ said she, ‘I am pope.’ ‘Well, wife,’ replied he, ‘it is a grand thing to be pope; and now you must be easy, for you can be nothing greater.’ ‘I will think about that,’ said the wife. Then they went to bed: but Dame Ilsabill could not sleep all night for thinking what she should be next. At last, as she was dropping asleep, morning broke, and the sun rose. ‘Ha!’ thought she, as she woke up and looked at it through the window, ‘after all I cannot prevent the sun rising.’ At this thought she was very angry, and wakened her husband, and said, ‘Husband, go to the fish and tell him I must be lord of the sun and moon.’ The fisherman was half asleep, but the thought frightened him so much that he started and fell out of bed. ‘Alas, wife!’ said he, ‘cannot you be easy with being pope?’ ‘No,’ said she, ‘I am very uneasy as long as the sun and moon rise without my leave. Go to the fish at once!’

Then the man went shivering with fear; and as he was going down to the shore a dreadful storm arose, so that the trees and the very rocks shook. And all the heavens became black with stormy clouds, and the lightnings played, and the thunders rolled; and you might have seen in the sea great black waves, swelling up like mountains with crowns of white foam upon their heads. And the fisherman crept towards the sea, and cried out, as well as he could:

‘O man of the sea!
Hearken to me!
My wife Ilsabill
Will have her own will,
And hath sent me to beg a boon of thee!’

‘What does she want now?’ said the fish. ‘Ah!’ said he, ‘she wants to be lord of the sun and moon.’ ‘Go home,’ said the fish, ‘to your pigsty again.’

And there they live to this very day.

The Project Gutenberg EBook of Grimms’ Fairy Tales, by The Brothers Grimm
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

Title: Grimms’ Fairy Tales

Author: The Brothers Grimm

Translator: Edgar Taylor and Marian Edwardes

Release Date: December 14, 2008 [EBook #2591]
Last Updated: November 7, 2016
Language: English
Produced by Emma Dudding, John Bickers, Dagny, and David Widger

Подпишитесь на рассылку

И получите полезную подборку бесплатных материалов для изучения английского языка на электронную почту.

Артикли с fruit, fish и другими неисчисляемыми существительными

Слова fruit и fish имеют несколько значений в английском языке. В одном они могут использоваться как исчисляемые, в другом – неисчисляемые, что в свою очередь накладывает отпечаток на употребление артиклей с ними. Мы рассмотрим основные значения каждого из слов и определим, какой артикль необходимо поставить в том или ином случае. Также мы познакомимся с другими существительными, которые употребляются как исчисляемые и неисчисляемые.

Употребление артикля с существительным fruit

«Фрукт», «фрукты» как тип пищи – это неисчисляемое существительное, перед которым не нужно ставить артикль. После такого существительного мы используем глагол в единственном числе.

Fruit is good for health. – Фрукты полезны для здоровья.

People eat more fruit now than they used to. – Сейчас люди едят больше фруктов, чем раньше.

Если мы говорим о разных видах фруктов или подразумеваем плод какого-то растения, тогда слово fruit становится исчисляемым и совершенно свободно употребляется во множественном числе. Здесь мы можем использовать определенный и нулевой артикль, реже неопределенный.

– What are the local fruits? – Какие фрукты распространены в этой местности?
– Mostly apples and cherries. – В основном, яблоки и вишня.

This bush gives very delicious fruits. – Этот куст плодоносит очень вкусными фруктами.

Apple is a fruit. – Яблоко – это фрукт.

И не забудем о переносном значении fruit – «плоды», «награда» (положительный результат какого-то действия). Здесь существительное используется с определенным артиклем в единственном или множественном числе, часто в комбинации с предлогом of: the fruit / the fruits of learning (плоды учения), the fruit / the fruits of labour (плоды труда), the fruit / the fruits of efforts (плоды усилий).

He began to appreciate the fruit of his efforts. – Он начал ценить плоды своих усилий.

Употребление артикля с существительным fish

Fish (рыба) – это исчисляемое существительное. Его особенность в том, что формы единственного и множественного числа совпадают: a fish – рыба, three fish – три рыбы, many fish – много рыб. Так же обстоят дела и с названиями некоторых видов рыб: a pike (щука) – pike (щуки), a plaice (камбала) – plaice (камбалы), a carp (карп) – carp (карпы).

Если существительное fish используется в единственном числе, мы ставим перед ним артикль.

My mom forbade me to have a dog, so I bought a nice fish yesterday. – Мама запретила мне заводить собаку, поэтому вчера я купил милую рыбку.

Если мы говорим о рыбе как общем понятии, артикль обычно не используется.

Fish travel long distances in the sea. – Рыба в море перемещается на большие расстояния.

How many fish did you catch yesterday? – Сколько рыбы ты вчера поймал?

В английском языке также сохранилась форма множественного числа fishes. Она употребляется, когда мы говорим о разных видах рыбы.

He presented his nephew with a bright album on exotic fishes. – Он подарил своему племяннику яркий альбом с экзотическими рыбами.

Когда мы говорим о рыбе как о продукте питания, тогда она становится неисчисляемой и артикль не нужен.

I always order fish in that restaurant. – Я всегда заказываю рыбу в этом ресторане.

Артикль с другими неисчисляемыми существительными

В английском языке много слов-хамелеонов. Аналогично fruit и fish они могут менять значение и становиться исчисляемыми и неисчисляемыми. Артикль в этом случае будет использоваться по общим правилам: с исчисляемыми – неопределенный, с неисчисляемыми – определенный или нулевой.

Посмотрим, какие слова относятся к этому правилу.

Если вдруг какая-то жидкость стала исчисляемой и перед ней появился неопределенный артикль, значит, подразумевается определенное количество этой жидкости:

If you go to the kitchen, bring me some lemonade, please. – Если пойдешь на кухню, возьми мне лимонад, пожалуйста.

If you go to the kitchen, bring me a lemonade (= a glass of lemonade / a bottle of lemonade), please. – Если пойдешь на кухню, возьми мне стакан/бутылку лимонада, пожалуйста.

Продукты питания могут быть исчисляемыми и неисчисляемыми:

There will be four of us. We will take chicken. – Нас будет четверо. Мы закажем курицу.

There will be six of us. I want to order a chicken. – Нас будет шестеро. Я хочу заказать целую курицу.

Материалы могут быть исчисляемыми и неисчисляемыми:

Give me some paper. I want to wrap the package. – Дай мне бумагу. Я хочу упаковать посылку.

Give me the morning paper. I want to wrap the package. – Дай мне утреннюю газету. Я хочу упаковать посылку.

Под таким общим названием затаились существительные, которые в одном значении используются как абстрактные, описывающие общее понятие, в другом – конкретные, описывающие узкое понятие. С ними следует быть очень внимательными, так как этот класс объединяет большое количество слов и подвести их все под одно правило сложно. Если вы не уверены, можно ли существительное использовать и в абстрактном, и конкретном значении, проверьте обязательно в словаре.

Вот несколько примеров таких слов:

I want to have my hair cut at the weekend. – Я хочу подстричь волосы на выходных.

I won’t eat this soup. There is a hair in it. – Я не буду есть этот суп. В нем плавает волос.

Еще больше слов, которые меняют свое значение, вы найдете в этом видео.

А если вы хотите узнать больше об абстрактных и конкретных существительных, читайте нашу статью.

Для того чтобы вам было удобно повторять слова, мы собрали их в таблицу, которую можно скачать. Также рекомендуем пройти тест, чтобы лучше запомнить, какой ставится артикль перед неисчисляемыми и исчисляемыми существительными.

Данная тема тесно связана с другими, описанными в статьях, на которые необходимо обратить внимание:

После ознакомления с ними рекомендуем пройти следующий тест на употребление артиклей в английском языке.

Если вы нашли ошибку, пожалуйста, выделите фрагмент текста и нажмите Ctrl+Enter.

Fishing terminology: What phrase describes a fish getting caught on the hook?

I know nothing about fishing, but I need to describe what happens when a fish snaps at the bait and gets hooked. Specifically, what does the hook do? Does it catch? Does it burrow? Does it seat itself? Does it embed itself? I’m looking for vivid, evocative phrasing, not a dry, technical description.

Also, what does a fisherman do to ensure the fish is hooked properly and won’t jump off the hook? What terms describe this action?

8 Answers 8

Dedicated amateur fisherman here, not linguist.

«Nibble» refers to a seemingly tentative attempt to take the hook and can be used as the event takes place or in later descriptions. Nibble is often used in a derogatory ( self-deprecating) fashion as in «I (he) caught 3 fish, but he (I) only had a couple of nibbles.» This is most frequently used when «still fishing» (just letting the hook dangle instead of pulling it through the water) with «bait» (see below).

«Bite», when used as the event takes place, could be a moderate or normal attempt to take the hook, but is often used synonymously with «strike» or «hit». When used in later descriptions, «bite» is pretty much the only term I use or hear used (other than nibble).

«Strike» and «hit» are aggressive attempts to take the hook and are normally used only as the event takes place. I see those words used in print more often that I hear them spoken even when there is an obviously aggressive attack on the hook.

«Take» is when the fish actually becomes «hooked»: «He (the fish) took it (the hook).»

If I have a fish «on», then the fish is hooked, but the fish is not «caught» until I’ve «landed» the fish or otherwise prevented it from getting away. Deliberately letting a fish go is called «releasing» the fish and is an obvious and necessary part of a form of fishing called «catch and release».

«Snag» is what happens when I’ve hooked a fish that seems to have not deliberately taken the hook. Snags are most frequent around the mouth area, so the fish was likely attacking in some fashion, but the hook is embedded outside the mouth in a way that looks like there was no attempt to actually eat it. As it happens, «snag» is also used to refer to getting the hook caught in weeds, rocks, etc. and to tangled line, especially at the reel (sometimes bad enough to be called a «bird’s nest»).

When the fish takes the hook, I’ll «set» it by pulling fairly sharply on the rod/line. If I try to set the hook on a nibble, I’ll likely scare the fish away. If I set the hook on a strike or bite, I could jerk the hook out and scare the fish away or I could successfully hook the fish, possibly as a snag. I always attempt to set the hook except when it’s just a nibble; in that case, I wait to see if the fish actually takes the hook.

Also, «hook», «lure», are colloquially used synonymously, for the most part. Technically, the hook is the sharpened curved bit that actually pierces the flesh and holds the fish, the lure being the (usually) metal bit that’s shaped and colored to attract the fish. The assembly of lure and hook is frequently referred to as a lure or a hook pretty much interchangeably. «Bait» is something added to the hook by the fisher (worms, leeches, strips of meat, etc.).

Callithumpian suggested that I add a note on «flies». I don’t know anything about fly-fishing, so I’ll leave that for commentators.

While not terribly vivid, the standard term I’ve always heard/used for what the fisherman does is to set the hook once the fish strikes.

I usually hear people who fish a lot say a fish hits or strikes when it takes the bait.

I’ve always heard (and read) the term «the fish bites.»

No one has yet mentioned the verb «to gaff.» The verb is coined from instrument used to perform the task, itself also known as a gaff, the wicked looking thing pictured below.

If the fish is particularly vigorous or large, a fisherman will jab this thing violently into the gills or the mouth of his catch to control and eventually subdue it until it dies of asphyxiation. However, the verb has gained wider currency than only being applicable to the cruel object from which it was birthed; it can be used as a general term to describe any hooking of a carcass, I believe. I’ve seen it been used to describe a butcher’s work.

I have a few things to add to the very thorough response given by @RonPorter.

First of all, I agree that many fish, (particularly insectivorous species, and the predatorial pelagic species), will tend to hit or strike at a bait, or (more frequently,) at a lure.

While the word hit is reserved for the fish’s action in attacking a lure or bait, it should be noted that the word strike is also commonly used to describe the action of the fisherman in setting a hook. (For example, my fiancé often admonishes me for standing there looking silly, when I should have been striking at the fish that has just taken my line).

With regard to Ron’s suggestion that the word «take» describes when the fish actually becomes hooked, I tend to disagree there, because when a fish takes a lure or bait, (in other words, when it swims away with it in its mouth), it doesn’t necessarily hook itself (hook up) in the process.

This concept is clearly demonstrated in what happens when a mulloway takes a live bait that you’ve set out (on the appropriate rig). The mulloway will take the live bait in its mouth and run with it for a short distance, before halting suddenly in order to chew the fish up a bit (to incapacitate it), then flip the partly-chewed fish around such that it may swallow it head-first.

It is only at this point, when the mulloway is just about to swallow its prey head-first, that you should strike at it in order to set your hook. (While the mulloway is running with the bait, you must always allow the line to free-spool; if you place any pressure whatsoever on the line at this point, the mulloway will feel the external input and immediately spit out your live bait).

Moving on, when a fish becomes hooked, there are several descriptors that can be used to indicate where the hook has become lodged.

Ideally, you want the fish to be hooked through the mouth, with the hook entering on one side of the jawbone and exiting on the other side, (thereby giving you a solid or firm hook-up). If the point of the hook does not pass around the jawbone, the fish is said to be lip-hooked, and you must be particularly gentle with it in order to avoid ripping the hook straight through the flesh (and therefore, out of the fish) while reeling it in.

If the fish has swallowed the hook, it can end up being either gill-hooked or gut-hooked, (the latter occurring when the hook happens to set itself in the wall of the fish’s oesophagus or stomach).

If the fish has been inadvertently hooked in any other part of its body, (say through its eye, or in its shoulder), the fish is said to be foul-hooked.

To further answer your question of what a fisherman does to ensure that his/her fish doesn’t jump off the hook (or shake itself free), the first step is, of course, setting the hook. After a solid hook-up has been achieved, the most critical factor is maintaining pressure on the line. As soon as you allow even the slightest bit of slack line between you and the fish, you run the risk of losing it. This gives rise to the common saying or farewell amongst fishermen: «tight lines!»

A final thing that I would like to point out is that I have never heard anyone use the words lure and hook interchangeably; (i.e, call a lure a hook). Perhaps that is a localised phenomenon occurring within part(s) of America and/or the UK?

Apart from the lures used in fly fishing, (flies that are tied directly onto the hook), hooks are generally completely separate from the lure body.

Why do Americans say «tuna fish»?

I mean, it’s not like there is a tuna vegetable or animal that it can be confused with.

7 Answers 7

I agree with you that it does seem redundant. However, this is common with other kinds of fish as well. Many people say «codfish» instead of «cod». Here is a recipe for «trout fish» croquets.

This convention has important meaning to a huge number of fish names: catfish, lionfish, swordfish, sunfish, cowfish, etc.

Also, it provides extra clarification for someone who wouldn’t know what a «tuna» or a «cod» is otherwise. Anyone learning English as a second language will probably learn the meaning of «fish» early on, but may not know the more specific names.

Tuna or cod is not always fish, just as cheddar is not always cheese.

In both cases, it distinguishes the primary item from items merely flavored with the item.

Tuna fish is almost always the meat of the Tuna. Seldom is it the fish itself alive and/or whole; for those uses, «tuna» is used without «fish.» Tuna salad is a mixture of tuna and mayonaise, and often some diced pickles and/or onions. Tuna sandwiches are sandwiches using tuna, and can be grilled or tuna salad. Tuna crackers are tuna flavored crackers. Tuna alone also can be a crude aphorism for female genitalia.

Cheddar is both the cheese, and the city where the recipe originates. Several cheeses are likewise named for their place of origin, most notably swiss, münster, and berkswell. But cheddar crackers are not made of cheddar, nor do they originate in cheddar, but are flavored with cheddar cheese. Cheddar spread is mostly cheddar cheese,

Cod can be the fish, or the meat of the fish; a cod dinner is seldom just codfish, but usually also chips (fries) and/or hushpuppies (corn fritters). The USS Cod is a submarine. Cod is also an extremely common acronym, most commonly for «Cash on Delivery.» Codpiece is a male pubic covering; cod at one point was slang for the scrotum, so codfish was a way of ensuring one was talking about fish and not men’s genitals.

Speaking of corn fritters, I’ve never met a fritter that wasn’t made with cornmeal; I’m TOLD they exist. Likewise, most have also wheat flour and whole kernel corn. It’s another case of a term that at first appears to be redundant, but really isn’t.