Who has some opinions?
Feb. 7th, 2019 05:49 pmNot exactly a shitpost, but an entirely frivolous poll. While I have an influx of new readers!
Consider the expression
Consider the expression
They can't see the wood for the trees:
Poll #21323 Wood
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 89
Do you know the expression?
View Answers
I am not familiar with the expression
7 (8.2%)
I am familiar with the expression
78 (91.8%)
The 'wood' which someone can't see represents:
View Answers
Important features
21 (24.7%)
Minor features
1 (1.2%)
Details
3 (3.5%)
The big picture
78 (91.8%)
Superficial features
2 (2.4%)
Features which require attention to notice
2 (2.4%)
When I think of the 'wood', I imagine
View Answers
The substance that the trees are made of
12 (14.6%)
The area of land where the trees are growing
70 (85.4%)
Ticky
(no subject)
Date: 2019-02-07 06:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-02-07 06:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-02-07 07:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-02-07 07:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-02-07 07:10 pm (UTC)Certainly I was aware from a young age that "wood" could mean "a place with lots of trees in it" because I knew that Winnie the Pooh lived in the Hundred Acre Wood. (I didn't know what acres were until rather later.)
(no subject)
Date: 2019-02-07 07:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-02-07 07:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-02-07 08:36 pm (UTC)(New Englander, with 1980s sojourn in Northern California.)
(no subject)
Date: 2019-02-07 08:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-02-08 12:51 am (UTC)(US, from Ohio and New England; we had a lot of British family friends when I was growing up, but I can't recall ever hearing them use this idiom to know which variant they night have used.)
I do agree that if I were to say "wood," I'd actually say "woods" -- but really it's such a fixed expression to me that it'd feel weird to not just say forest. I had no idea this was a regionalism!
(no subject)
Date: 2019-02-08 02:59 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-02-08 02:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-02-08 10:40 pm (UTC)I have heard "wood" meaning the collection of trees, but never in this saying.
(no subject)
Date: 2019-02-07 07:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-02-07 07:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-02-07 07:30 pm (UTC)I think of "forest" as connoting, in addition to "a bunch of trees together" also something along the lines of "untamed/unmanaged wilderness" - which of course it generally isn't, even out West, it's either managed or abandoned but previously cultivated/managed, but it's part of the national myth that it is.
"The woods" actually seems less poetic, and also, like, smaller? It could just mean the same thing as "forest" but I wouldn't call, for example, the half-acre of unmanaged trees at the back of a park a "forest", but I might call it "the woods", like, "I think a bobcat lives in the woods down by the crick" or something, whereas the woods down by the crick are not nearly majestic enough to rate "forest".
"Wood" singular to mean "group of trees" is either deliberately poetic/archaic/British, or very rarely it's short for "woodlot" and is definitely heavily managed.
(no subject)
Date: 2019-02-11 08:48 pm (UTC)You're right about myths too, of course. Plenty of apparently vast wilderness forests that are actually managed, or at least were managed for several centuries even if they've been left alone more recently. And plenty of cute little woodland groves that are actually the remnants of really quite ancient and mostly natural ecosystems. But the connotations of the words are that forest is grand and wild, and wood is local and domestic.
(no subject)
Date: 2019-02-08 03:02 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2019-02-11 08:50 pm (UTC)Wood v. Woods
Date: 2019-02-20 06:13 pm (UTC)Southernwood