Why do Americans say...

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:26 pm

Just for a bit of light relief, this one.

OK, here goes: Why do Americans say, "can't see the forest for the trees" (and not, "can't see the wood for the trees")?

If there was a "whistling innocently" emoticon, I'd use it here:

. As it is, I'll need to settle for this instead:

.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:40 pm

Actually, seriously, I think the American variant makes the meaning of the idiom much clearer.

Any more examples of where the American "genius" has improved the language?

JuliaM · Post by **JuliaM** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 5:36 pm

I guess if you think of the "wood" not as being timber, but as being an area where trees grow, (as in "if you go down to the woods tonight, you're in for a big surprise") it makes more sense. I have always said "the forest for the trees". I think the wood version might be English, but I could be wrong.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 8:10 pm

A wood is normally larger than a grove but smaller than a forest accoriding to Merriam Webster.

The American and British versions are saying exactly the same thing. Perhaps the reason is everything is bigger in America so where we have woods they have forests

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 1:26 am

JuliaM wrote:I guess if you think of the "wood" not as being timber, but as being an area where trees grow, (as in "if you go down to the woods tonight, you're in for a big surprise") it makes more sense. I have always said "the forest for the trees". I think the wood version might be English, but I could be wrong.

Actually, I was tempted to ask in my first post if anyone thought "the wood", "the woods" etc was a wonderfully clear count usage of the usually uncountable/mass "timber" noun "wood", but it seems to be less a case of polysemy than a quite different meaning.

I mean, when I look at a piece of wood or two wooden Trojan horses I don't see trees, much less a whole wood or forest of trees, and it's the same thing vice-versa (though, arguably, you can see "the wood in the woods" a little more clearly than "the woods in the wood"), so I came to the conlusion that to teach "the wood(s)" as being "countable timber"* would lead to a situation in which one, well, couldn't see the wood(s) for the wood! (Then, there is the addition of the -s, which makes "a/the wood" into a much bigger "mass"!).

What's your take on this, guys? (Don't just point out that these words have consecutively numbered subentries in any dictionary, answer the question and its implications!).

*I'd just view (teach?) it as part of wider phrases (usually plural in form): We went for a picnic in the woods by the river; We're not out of the woods yet; We don't often see you in this neck of the woods. These are the same in both American and British English (there's no, "We're not out of the forest yet!").

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 1:44 am

If this is your idea of light relief, then you will certainly ace any linguistics course you attempt!

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 2:47 am

Yey, backslaps all around!!!

But the problem is, wood-cutter, that although I said "Just for a bit of light relief, this one", I don't actually get much heavier than this.

revel · Post by **revel** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:45 am

Hey all!

Here's what my published-on-paper "Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language" c1989 by dilithium Press Ltd says:

"7. Usually, woods, a large and thick collection of growing trees; a grove or forest: They picnicked in the woods."

And, the truth is, between the two choices, I believe I've always said "Can't see the woods for the trees" instead of forest. If it helps, I'm from the mid-west of the USA, where forests have long been eliminated to make way for soy-bean and corn fields, and groups of trees can only be referred to as "woods" by the locals, since, as Steven points out, and Mr D¡ck confirms, they are smaller, less wild areas where trees gather together and shade and propogate.

(for those who might wonder how I got the "dirty-word" censure program to overlook the word "D¡ck", I have a Spanish keyboard that includes the up-side-down exclamation mark that looks like an "i". Hahaha, take that! Big Brother! Hahaha

)

peace,
revel.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:43 am

revel wrote:Here's what my published-on-paper "Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language" c1989 by dilithium Press Ltd says:

The dilithium crystals cannae take it, Cap'n!

paksu · Post by **paksu** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 2:37 am

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results ... image.y=12

can't see the wood for the trees
not see the wood for the trees

Teacher Discussion Forums

Why do Americans say...

Why do Americans say...

Mr D¡ck says:

Re: Mr D¡ck says:

Cambridge dictionary says