Can fish swim?

The dictionary definition of anthropomorphism describes it as being the "attribution of human characteristics or behavior to animals or objects". Continued discussions in class have brought the question "can dogs run", "can birds fly", or "can fish swim". At first the answer seems like an obvious yes. However it's important to acknowledge the fact that actions like running are human attributes that are given to animals. A writer might describe a mountain as trembling, but mountains cant literally tremble. However when you start dealing with more literal phrases like the ones above, its harder to say. Videos like this, this, or this answer the literal definition of the question with other animals doing human things like lobsters writing. Although a fair point is made by saying that those are human characteristics given to animals I think that if there is intent behind what an animal is doing (such as the dog running through the obstacle course) the animal is not being anthropomorphized. On the flip side if there is a lack of intent (such as a fish blindly swimming wherever it pleases) than it is anthropomorphism and in that case, fish could not swim. However the question of whether or not birds can fly or not is in a category of its own. Humans obviously cannot fly on their own, most often they commit the action by using a plane or some other device. In fact saying humans can fly could possibly be an example of something called Zoomorphism, which is giving animal like qualities to something that is not an animal. So although the argument could be made that humans can't fly (by using a plane or whatnot), by using the same logic of intent behind actions, humans can fly (although someone using something like a hang glider would most likely not be). So while dogs and fish need intent behind running or swimming to not be anthropomorphized, birds can in fact fly.