Re: Forest - 'woods' plural versus 'wood' singular
Posted by Paul Guthrie
on October 14, 2001 In Reply to: Re: Forest posted by ESC on
October 14, 2001
: : Here seems to be one that is hard to find the origin of:
: : can't see the forest for the trees
: : Tom
: UNABLE TO SEE THE WOODS FOR THE TREES - From "Heavens to Betsy"
by Charles Earle Funk (Harper & Row, New York, 1955): "Too beset
by petty things to appreciate the greatness or grandeur; too wrapped
up in details to gain a view of the whole. In America we are likely
to use the plural, 'woods,' or possibly to substitute 'forest,'
but 'wood' is the old form and is preferable. Yes, the saying is
at least five hundred years old, and probably a century or two could
be added to that, for it must have been long been in use to have
been recorded in 1546 in John Heywood's 'A dialogue Conteynyng the
Nomber in Effect of all the Prouerbes in the Englishe Tongue.' He
wrote 'Plentie is no deinte, ye see not your owne ease. I see, ye
can not see the wood for trees.' And a few years later, in 1583,
Brian Melbancke, in 'Philotimus: the Warre Betwixt Nature and Fortune,'
wrote: 'Thou canst not or wilt not see wood for trees.' The saying
has cropped up repeatedly from then to the present, becoming, in
fact, more frequent with the passing years."
A couple of questions for the knowledgeable!
(1) The phrase often uses the singular 'wood' instead of 'woods'
or 'forest'. Although the singular 'wood' can mean forest, it can
also mean the substance of trees. Does anyone know for sure whether
'wood' in the early references quoted above are referring to wood
(a forest) as opposed to wood (the substance of trees)? Is there
any sense of the phrase to mean that seeing trees one is unable
or unwilling to see that they are (composed of) wood?
(2) Does anyone know what 'Plentie is no deinte, ye see not your
owne ease' means? (As in the John Heywood reference above.)
Thanks!
- R.Berg - Please post again Paul Guthrie
10/15/01 (
3)
|