# a forest, a wood, the woods



## MedaBeda

Hello,

I probably understand the usage of the word forest, but Im not sure about a wood and the woods _(I mean with the meaning of more trees together in some place)_.

If there is one forest, I say: There is a forest.
If there are two, I say: There are two forests.


But how about a wood and the woods?
Can I say:

There *is* a wood. There *are* the woods _(both mean one wood and with "the woods" I have to use the plural right???) _
There are 2 woods. _(can I say this???)

_
Thank you


----------



## entangledbank

Yes, 'woods' is just the ordinary plural of 'wood'. If you walk in one wood, then cross the street and walk in another wood, you have walked in two woods. When you're in a wood, you can also say you're in the woods - especially if it's a large area. So 'the woods' is more common in the USA and Canada, which have very large forested areas. In England, there might be a little wood here, then another little wood a short distance away.


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Yes.


> There are two woods (Shirtcliffe Woods at the east end and Smelter Wood at the west), with a stretch of scrub and grassland in between. (sheffieldenvironment.org)


----------



## MedaBeda

ahaa so therfore I say the woods *are* because the area is larger right??


----------



## entangledbank

No, you say 'are' simply because it's plural. But the idiom is that plural 'the woods' can be used for even a single, small wood.

A similar thing: If you're climbing one single peak in the Tatra Mountains, you're on a mountain, but you're also in the mountains. It's like being on the beach, or in the countryside, but with some words we use a plural noun for the general location.


----------



## MedaBeda

thanks to all of you


----------



## zaffy

entangledbank said:


> So 'the woods' is more common in the USA and Canada, which have very large forested areas.



A heard an AE speaker say she never uses 'the woods' and she added it sounded like she was reading an old-fashined fairy tale. She only says 'a forest'. Is that true for AE or is it just her?


----------



## JulianStuart

It would, I expect, depend on the context and the size/extent of the {area with trees}.  There is also a famous song and it would not work with "forest". Perhaps that AE speaker has only ever heard the word "woods" in the song. It is of course, a "fairy tale" because teddy bears don't have picnics.


> If you go down in the woods today, you're sure of a big surprise
> ...


----------



## Roxxxannne

I use 'woods' for an area that I can walk through  -- from one edge to the other -- in more than five minutes and less than three or four hours.


----------



## Steven David

We use woods in American English all the time.

There are a couple expressions that come to mind.

Someone's neck of the woods, as in my neck, your neck, of the woods. This means in the area, in my area or your area.

Someone could say this. Give me a call when you're in going to be in my neck of the woods. I'm not certain of just how often people use that these days, but it's still a contemporary expression, I would say.

Also, people speak of being out of the woods. This is to say not in any trouble or without problems. So someone could say this. We're not out of the woods yet. This means that we do not have a solution to something or maybe there is still a problem or trouble.

And, yes, we do refer to wooded areas, which is to say areas with lots of trees and, to some extent, wild animals, as the woods. We also say forest. It depends on what someone's talking about.

Someone might even speak of rural areas as out in the woods. For example, someone could say this. I'm moving away from the city. I'm going to be living out in the woods.

You never know. Anyone could say anything.

Squirrels, chipmunks, wolves, deer, bears and many more animals all live out in the woods, or we can say they live in the forest.

I wonder what the consensus is for which word to use among all the animals. Woods or forest?


----------



## zaffy

So an AE speaker might say both of these, while a BE one will say the first one, right?

-A friend of mine has bought a cute cabin in the woods.
-A friend of mine has bought a cute cabin in a forest.


----------



## Keith Bradford

zaffy said:


> So an AE speaker might say both of these, while a BE one will say the first one, right?
> -A friend of mine has bought a cute cabin in the woods...



Right.  We tend to use the word "forest" for those large areas found in mainland Europe (the Black Forest), Siberia, Africa (tropical rain forest) and north America.

Having said that, there are specific areas of woodland in Britain whose name includes "forest" (the _New Forest, Sherwood Forest, Kielder Forest_, area 650 km²...) but we'd still be likely to say "we picnicked in the woods" when talking about them. You would find it hard to get planning permission to build a cabin there, no matter how cute.


----------



## zaffy

Keith Bradford said:


> we'd still be likely to say "*we picnicked in the woods*" when talking about them.



So if you spent a nice time picking in one area of woodland, is it plural or singular?

"The woods we picnicked in *was/were* amazing."


----------



## london calling

zaffy said:


> A heard an AE speaker say she never uses 'the woods' and she added it sounded like she was reading an old-fashined fairy tale. She only says 'a forest'. Is that true for AE or is it just her?
> 
> View attachment 43745


That's the Australian flag so she's an AusE speaker, not an AE speaker.


----------



## zaffy

There are three ladies, the one on the right is American


----------



## london calling

zaffy said:


> There are three ladies, the one on the right is American


Yes, but the one who talks about it being like something from an old-fashioned fairy-tale (which is what you asked about**) is Australian, not American.

_** "A heard an AE speaker say she never uses 'the woods' and she added it sounded like she was reading an old-fashined fairy tale. She only says 'a forest'. Is that true for AE or is it just her? "

_


----------



## zaffy

london calling said:


> Yes, but the one who talks about it being like something from an old-fashioned fairy-tale (which is what you asked about**) is Australian, not American.



Not really.  It was the American. You might find this video called "ONE language, THREE accents - UK vs. USA vs. AUS English!" and have a listen at 9:15


----------



## london calling

zaffy said:


> Not really.  It was the American. You might find this video called "ONE language, THREE accents - UK vs. USA vs. AUS English!" and have a listen at 9:15


I will, but according to that screenshot the Aussie said it.

Edit. You're right, it was the American.

PS Lucy is really irritating....  She also came out with a couple of things I don't agree with .


----------



## zaffy

1. And looking at this cathedral, is it surrounded by 'a wood' or by 'the woods' in BE? Or does either work?

2. And how about AE? Surrounded by what?


----------



## london calling

I wouldn't call those a wood/woods. To me that cathedral is surrounded by trees.


----------



## london calling

Keith Bradford said:


> Having said that, there are specific areas of woodland in Britain whose name includes "forest" (the _New Forest, Sherwood Forest, Kielder Forest_, area 650 km²...) but we'd still be likely to say "we picnicked in the woods" when talking about them. You would find it hard to get planning permission to build a cabin there, no matter how cute.


Personally, I wouldn't say 'I had a picnic in the woods' if I were in the New Forest...


----------



## Roxxxannne

zaffy said:


> So an AE speaker might say both of these, while a BE one will say the first one, right?
> 
> -A friend of mine has bought a cute cabin in the woods.
> -A friend of mine has bought a cute cabin in a forest.
> 
> 
> View attachment 43757


Without knowing how far the trees extend in any direction, I would say 'in the woods' rather than 'in a forest' for this house (which appears to be too fancy for a cabin).  It's unlikely to be very deep in a forest in any event, since it has electricty to burn, as it were.


----------



## london calling

zaffy said:


> So an AE speaker might say both of these, while a BE one will say the first one, right?
> 
> -A friend of mine has bought a cute cabin in the woods.
> -A friend of mine has bought a cute cabin in a forest.


No. If it were in a forest, I'd say it's in a forest. If it were in the woods I'd say it's in the woods.


----------



## Edinburgher

zaffy said:


> And looking at this cathedral, is it surrounded by 'a wood' or by 'the woods' in BE?


I agree with LC in #20 that it's just trees.  There aren't really enough of them to be called a wood, let alone a forest.

Call me picky, but this seems to be some kind of fortified monastery.  It happens to contain a cathedral of sorts.
The cathedral itself is not surrounded by any forest/wood(s)/trees. It is the whole monastery complex that is surrounded by trees.


----------



## ewie

Call me even pickier, but the complex isn't surrounded by trees: it only has trees on three sides 

I really don't think it's useful to generalize too much on this subject.  I might just as well say:


> -A friend of mine has bought a cute cabin in *a wood*.


as any of the other options.


----------



## kentix

> -A friend of mine has bought a cute cabin in *a wood*.


That's one I would not expect to hear in American English.


----------



## zaffy

I came across this description "A forest is generally assumed to be larger* than woods*." Now, why is there no 'the' article before 'woods'?  In all possible example I have come across it was always 'the woods'. Dictionaries also say a wood = the woods.

Read more: Differences Between Woods and Forest | Difference Between Differences Between Woods and Forest | Difference Between


----------



## Roxxxannne

Elsewhere in the article from which you quoted "A forest is generally assumed to be larger* than woods*," 'woods' is a plural noun used to refer to a singular place. (in the final paragraph: "In the plural, it can mean a group of trees.")

That sentence would be less awkward if it were something like 'Forest' denotes an area that is larger than 'woods.'

Incidentally, I disagree with that article's statement that woods necessarily have wide distances between trees.  Second-growth woods (wooded areas that were previously cleared and then abandoned) can be very dense if they are left to themselves.


----------



## Edinburgher

zaffy said:


> Now, why is there no 'the' article before 'woods'?


"Woods" is a bit of a curiosity because it is grammatically plural but semantically singular.
There also exists the grammatically singular "wood" with the same meaning.

The description is not talking about a particular wood, and therefore, in order to mirror the indefinite article with "forest", we need the indefinite article for the other one too.  The correct indefinite article for a grammatically plural noun is the zero article.

They could have used the grammatically singular version instead, and then they would have said "than a wood".


----------



## zaffy

Edinburgher said:


> The description is not talking about a particular wood, and therefore, in order to mirror the indefinite article with "forest", we need the indefinite article for the other one too. The correct indefinite article for a grammatically plural noun is the zero article.



Yeah, I know the noun was not definite as it was a general description, yet I thought it was always 'the woods'. Taking that logic, I should be able to say "I'd love to own a cabin *in woods*", as I don't not mean any particular woods. Would that be correct?


----------



## JulianStuart

A simple, precise delineation of what AE speakers all say and what BE speakers all say will never be forthcoming.  A few individuals chiming in, whether in videos or articles, can provide samples of the _range_ of usage but one expects dictionaries to provide definitions based on wider input. Here's what the WRF dictionaries have to offer.  My usage allows woods and forests to be either quite dense with iundergrowth or somewhat open, where one can walk with ease.

Collins Concise (British) *English* Dictionary © HarperCollins Publishers::


> *woods*/wʊdz/pl n closely packed trees forming *a forest or wood*, esp a specific one
> WordReference Random House Unabridged Dictionary of American English © 2020
> *forest*/ˈfɒrɪst/n a *large* wooded *area* having a thick growth of trees and plants



WordReference Random House Learner's Dictionary of *American English* © 2020


> *for•est* /ˈfɔrɪst, ˈfɑr-/  n. [countable] Botany, Ecology a *large* *area* of land covered with trees and underbrush; woods.
> *wood*  (wŏŏd), n. *Often*,  *woods.* (_used with a sing. or pl. v._) a large and thick collection of growing trees; a grove or forest:_They picnicked in the woods._


----------



## Edinburgher

zaffy said:


> I should be able to say "I'd love to own a cabin *in woods*", as I don't not mean any particular woods. Would that be correct?


No, that doesn't sound natural.  It would need to be "a cabin in *the* woods".  This would not make the woods specific as such, they would merely be the specific woods in which the non-specific cabin is located.   We probably wouldn't say "a cabin in *a* forest" either, and "a cabin in *the* forest" would also not necessarily mean a specific forest. But with forest, there is the easier non-specfic option "a forest cabin", but "a woods cabin" is not idiomatic, and "a wood cabin" means something else - a cabin made of wood.

As ever, with "a cabin in the woods", context could determine whether you had a specific woods in mind for your cabin.


----------



## kentix

In my mind, in American English, forest is used more in a geographical/ecological sense over large areas. The U.S. has a lot of very large woodlands designated as national forests or state forests. There are no national woods. Forests are ecological zones.

Forests cover vast areas in many states.
Woods cover vast areas in many states. 
The woods cover vast areas in many states. 

(The) woods is used on a personal level.

I like walking in the woods.
When we were little we had a fort in some woods outside of town.
Half of my backyard is woods.
I feel most at home in the woods.
I'd rather spend my vacation at the ocean than camping in the woods.
They are buying that patch of woods north of Highway 41 and making it part of the National Forest.


----------



## zaffy

kentix said:


> Half of my backyard is woods.


And what if said 'the woods' here?


----------



## JulianStuart

zaffy said:


> And what if said 'the woods' here?


It would sound weird  (unless the woods had been previously specified/mentioned)


----------



## Roxxxannne

Agreed.  "Half of my backyard is the forest" would sound weird in the same way.

Perhaps "half of my backyard is woods" uses "woods" uncountably.  It's like saying "Most of my food this week has been fish."


----------



## RM1(SS)

zaffy said:


> 1. And looking at this cathedral, is it surrounded by 'a wood' or by 'the woods' in BE? Or does either work?
> 
> 2. And how about AE? Surrounded by what?


Add a couple hundred trees, so that it is entirely surrounded, and
... it is surrounded by woods.
... it is in the woods.



kentix said:


> Half of my backyard is woods.


I would say "... is wooded."

(Which brings to mind an old magazine article talking about a fireplace with "a wooded mantel", and my friend's wondering if deer often wandered out into the living room. )


----------



## JulianStuart

Roxxxannne said:


> Agreed.  "Half of my backyard is the forest" would sound weird in the same way.
> 
> Perhaps "half of my backyard is woods" uses "woods" uncountably.  It's like saying "Most of my food this week has been fish."



And the other half of my backyard is flowerbeds.
It seems reasonable to generalize that "woods" _describes_ properties of a particular type of habitat, while wood and forest more often describe locations.


----------



## Roxxxannne

Yes, 'woods' without an article describes the properties of the habitat.
In addition to  the definite article, one often adds a word or phrase to indicate a specific wooded area:
There are a lot of oaks in the woods between here and the river. 
There are a lot of oaks in Trafton Woods.
which is different from
A lot of oaks grow in woods.

(In reply to #37:  I searched "wooded mantel" and found a description of a house with a wooded mantel and a master bathroom that contains "a duel sink vanity," presumably for a couple's flirtatious water fights.)


----------



## RM1(SS)

Roxxxannne said:


> presumably for a couple's flirtatious water fights.


----------



## zaffy

And would you agree with this BE speaker?

_A forest is bigger than a wood, often more densely packed with trees (especially if commercially planted versus a natural forest) and, these days in the UK, often used for commercial growing of trees for wood. Historically, a forest was an area of wooded land large enough to support a sustainable stock of animals to be hunted by the landed gentry and royalty. Such forests (or game preserves) could include more open areas (even moorland). _


----------



## london calling

Which BE speaker? Where's this quote from? In any case I agree, mostly.

I was brought up in one of London's leafier suburbs. The house (where my parents still live) backs onto what we call 'the woods,' which is in fact comprises 8,000 year-old woodlands and a large green area. The wooded area has three different names as it is considered three different woods which have different names (four if you include another wood on the other side of the main road which cuts through the area), although there is no physical division between them.


----------



## JulianStuart

Not much to disagree with.  The historical reference suggests what a forest in the UK might contain, if there were landed gentry and royalty. I don't think they are including, in the "definition" of forest, that it must be large enough to sustain the animal stock. Those animal(stock)s were there before the gentry and royalty! Obviously, it wouldn't apply to tropical rainforests


----------



## zaffy

london calling said:


> Which BE speaker? Where's this quote from?


A different automobile forum

Anyway, having considered all your posts, it appears to me the first example is the best, it works well in both in AE and BE. 
The second example works in BE only, yet the first one is better.
The last example doesn't sound natural as people don't usually spend time relaxing in forests. 

Have you ever enjoyed a walk through the woods on a nice day?
Have you ever enjoyed a walk through a wood on a nice day?
Have you ever enjoyed a walk through a forest on a nice day?


----------



## JulianStuart

‘Forest Bathing’ Is Great for Your Health. Here’s How to Do It

We actually live on the edge of a small piece of redwood forest - probably so called because redwood wood(s) sounds redundant. It's also referred to sometimes a just "some redwoods"


----------



## london calling

zaffy said:


> A different automobile forum
> 
> Anyway, having considered all your posts, it appears to me the first example is the best, it works well in both in AE and BE.
> The second example works in BE only, yet the first one is better.
> The last example doesn't sound natural as people don't usually spend time relaxing in forests.
> 
> Have you ever enjoyed a walk through the woods on a nice day?
> Have you ever enjoyed a walk through a wood on a nice day?
> Have you ever enjoyed a walk through a forest on a nice day?


Sorry, I agreed with you and then realised I don't. The three sentences are fine grammatically but it isn't true that people don't spend time relaxing in forests. They certainly do in the UK.


----------



## Edinburgher

If you're a teddy bear and want to have a picnic with your friends, then you'll gather in the woods, not the forest.


----------



## london calling

Edinburgher said:


> If you're a teddy bear and want to have a picnic with your friends, then you'll gather in the woods, not the forest.


Ah, but I'm not. And I have been known to picnic in the New Forest:


----------



## zaffy

And say I buy quite a big plot of land for commercial purposes, that is,  I want to wood it and then cut down the trees and sell the wood. Which of these  would work best?

"I'm thinking of converting this land into a forest/a wood/the woods."


----------



## JulianStuart

And then there's woodlands to discuss and compare and contrast with woods and forests.


----------



## JulianStuart

zaffy said:


> And say I buy quite a big plot of land for commercial purposes, that is,  I want to wood it and then cut down the trees and sell the wood. Which of these  would work best?
> 
> "I'm thinking of converting this land into a forest/a wood/the woods."


#41 contains an answer to that, it seems.


----------



## zaffy

JulianStuart said:


> #41 contains an answer to that, it seems.


In AE as well?


----------



## london calling

zaffy said:


> And say I buy quite a big plot of land for commercial purposes, that is,  I want to wood it and then cut down the trees and sell the wood. Which of these  would work best?
> 
> "I'm thinking of converting this land into a forest/a wood/the woods."


Do you mean planted forests? (FAO website).


----------



## JulianStuart

london calling said:


> Do you mean planted forests? (FAO website).


Or timber plantation (forest)... Plantation - Wikipedia


----------



## zaffy

Just checked the Little Red Riding Hood and her grandmother and the wolf lived in the woods. Would it sound natural if I said they lived in a forest?

_Little Red Riding Hood promised to obey her mother. The grandmother lived out in the woods, a half hour from the village. When Little Red Riding Hood entered the woods a wolf came up to her. She did not know what a wicked animal he was, and was not afraid of him. _


----------



## kentix

"I'm thinking of converting this land into a forest/a wood/the woods."

_I'm thinking about converting this land to timber._

I wouldn't call trees planted in orderly rows for harvesting a forest.


----------



## Keith Bradford

zaffy said:


> And say I buy quite a big plot of land for commercial purposes, that is,  I want to wood it and then cut down the trees and sell the wood. Which of these  would work best?
> 
> "I'm thinking of converting this land into a forest/a wood/the woods."


None of the above.
I'm thinking of planting trees on this land.​I'm thinking of putting this land down to trees/to timber.  (More commercial terminology.)​I'm thinking of turning this land into woodland.​​You can't turn your land into a forest unless you're planning for the year 2500 and it covers several hundred acres.


----------



## Edinburgher

zaffy said:


> Would it sound natural if I said they lived in a forest?


Yes, I think so.  The lion in _The Wizard of Oz_ was (or wanted to be) king of the forest.


----------



## Roxxxannne

zaffy said:


> And say I buy quite a big plot of land for commercial purposes, that is,  I want to wood it and then cut down the trees and sell the wood. Which of these  would work best?
> 
> "I'm thinking of converting this land into a forest/a wood/the woods."


In northern New England, an area where one grows trees for the purpose of harvesting them is a 'woodlot' or, if you are growing Christmas trees, a 'tree farm.'


----------



## zaffy

This Canadian came across a library while walking through the woods/forest and he said "Have you ever seen a library in the middle of *the woods*?" and then he named the video "Secret library in *the forest*". So looks like those two are interchangeable for him, right?


----------



## Edinburgher

zaffy said:


> So looks like those two are interchangeable for him, right?


Yes, they are interchangeable for him *in the given context*. That doesn't necessarily mean the're interchangeable for him in *every context*.


----------



## london calling

zaffy said:


> This Canadian came across a library while walking through the woods/forest and he said "Have you ever seen a library in the middle of *the woods*?" and then he named the video "Secret library in *the forest*". So looks like those two are interchangeable for him, right?


Just listened to it. He actually says "Have you ever seen a library in the middle of the woods, in the middle of the forest?"


----------



## zaffy

london calling said:


> Just listened to it. He actually says "Have you ever seen a library in the middle of the woods, in the middle of the forest?"



Yes, which makes me think even stronger they are interchangeable for him.

And what if I wanted to refer to some woodland using a demonstrative? Say a family are hiking through a wooded area.

-Dad, this wood is amazing.
-Dad, these woods are amazing.
-Dad, this forest is amazing.

I guess the first one doesn't work as it means something different, how about the others?


----------



## london calling

They're all fine. As I said above where I was brought up there are three woods, known as 'the woods' but which are in fact three different woods, so if I were talking about XXX wood I'd say it was an amazing wood.


----------



## kentix

I'd only use the last two.


----------



## Roxxxannne

zaffy said:


> Yes, which makes me think even stronger they are interchangeable for him.
> 
> And what if I wanted to refer to some woodland using a demonstrative? Say a family are hiking through a wooded area.
> 
> -Dad, this wood is amazing.
> -Dad, these woods are amazing.
> -Dad, this forest is amazing.
> 
> I guess the first one doesn't work as it means something different, how about the others?
> 
> View attachment 43812


The Canadian might be using both words to emphasize how remarkable it is to find a library surrounded by a lot of trees, which are themselves surrounded by a lot of trees, and so on.   As Edinburgher says in #61, this doesn't mean he always uses the two words interchangeably.
As an American adult, "This wood is amazing" is not something I would say. I would say "These woods are ..." or "This forest is" depending on the size of the forest as I perceived it.  The photo seems to show a rather small stand of mature trees with some gaps -- one in the background and one to the right (small trees less than 10 years old plus sunlight); in itself, that does not indicate 'forest' to me.    But if I were the apparent age of the child on the left and had his or her youthful imagination I would call it a forest.


----------



## zaffy

london calling said:


> They're all fine. As I said above where I was brought up there are three woods, known as 'the woods' but which are in fact three different woods, so if I were talking about XXX wood I'd say it was an amazing wood.



So you might as well say "Have you ever seen a library in the middle of *a* *wood?"* in that context, right?


----------



## JulianStuart

zaffy said:


> So you might as well say "Have you ever seen a library in the middle of *a* *wood?"* in that context, right?


Or, if it was a big one, a library in the middle of a forest.
If you lose consciousness (as in a thriller movie) and wake up in the woods, you won't know if you are in a wood or a forest until you find out how big the area with trees is.


----------



## london calling

zaffy said:


> So you might as well say "Have you ever seen a library in the middle of *a* *wood?"* in that context, right?


I might well.


----------



## Roxxxannne

JulianStuart said:


> Or, if it was a big one, a library in the middle of a forest.
> If you lose consciousness (as in a thriller movie) and wake up in the woods, you won't know if you are in a wood or a forest until you find out how big the area with trees is.


I pass over the irony of sources of paper surrounding a building full of paper products to address the issue of returning to consciousness surrounded by trees in a thriller.
The first issue -- is this wooded area relatively small or relatively large? -- can be solved easily.   Presumably one carries a compass and wears good hiking boots at all times in this thriller, so one can make successive forays back and forth from the original coming-to-consciousness spot to the hypothesized edges of a small wooded area, and has on one's person a way to record one's observations.    If one's research determines the wooded area to be relatively large, then it is a *forest*.  If it is relatively small, one then must determine what to call it in order to appear unexotic to the locals (assuming that is one's goal).  This can also be easily accomplished.  At the edge of the tree-filled area, one listens for human voices.  If one overhears reference to barristers, car parks, and maths, one refers to one's location as '*a wood*.'  If the overheard conversations include lawyers, parking lots and math, one is in '*the woods.*'
While this problem is easily solved in one's armchair, in reality it is much more difficult to solve, what with all the gunshots, explosions, car chases, men in tuxedos, women in slinky gowns, and villains of the current ethnic or professional variety in the middle distance.


----------



## JulianStuart

Roxxxannne said:


> I pass over the irony of sources of paper surrounding a building full of paper products to address the issue of returning to consciousness surrounded by trees in a thriller.
> The first issue -- is this wooded area relatively small or relatively large? -- can be solved easily.   Presumably one carries a compass and wears good hiking boots at all times in this thriller, so one can make successive forays back and forth from the original coming-to-consciousness spot to the hypothesized edges of a small wooded area, and has on one's person a way to record one's observations.    If one's research determines the wooded area to be relatively large, then it is a *forest*.  If it is relatively small, one then must determine what to call it in order to appear unexotic to the locals (assuming that is one's goal).  This can also be easily accomplished.  At the edge of the tree-filled area, one listens for human voices.  If one overhears reference to barristers, car parks, and maths, one refers to one's location as '*a wood*.'  If the overheard conversations include lawyers, parking lots and math, one is in '*the woods.*'



So, after struggling past the zombies and (out-of-place but the director insisted) poisonous snakes, one finds one is _still_ in the woods.  Or perhaps it's just a copse -  sorry for the spoiler, that's in chapter 4 (Do AE speakers recognize/use the word copse, I wonder? To my mind there aren't many trees in a copse, but if it's dark when you wake up, you might not realize...


----------



## london calling

I watched the video . He was in the Salmon Arm (BC) area. All I could see was trees, water (Lake Shuswap, from what I can see on Google Maps) and hills in the area he was visiting.


----------



## kentix

Copse isn't much used in AE.


----------



## Edinburgher

JulianStuart said:


> Do AE speakers recognize/use the word copse, I wonder?


They will assume you mis-spelled "corpse".  It's in a thriller, after all.


----------



## JulianStuart

Edinburgher said:


> They will assume you mis-spelled "corpse".  It's in a thriller, after all.


Call the copse - we found a small wooded area.


----------



## kentix

When reading _The Lord of the Rings_ as an AE speaker one thing you have to get used to is Frodo eating coneys in copses.

Those are two "co" words we don't generally use in AE.


----------



## london calling

You do have glades in your forests, though? I have to say though  I never worked out why the Everglades, which is swampland, was called that.


----------



## JulianStuart

london calling said:


> You do have glades in your forests, though? I have to say though  I never worked out why the Everglades, which is swampland, was called that.


Thered are cypress trees there (and a not very good explanation of the origin, in the wiki) but you led me to find


> Small *islands of trees* growing on land raised between 1 foot (0.30 m) and 3 feet (0.91 m) above sloughs and prairies are *called* tropical hardwood *hammocks*.


 Officer, I just found a corpse in this hammock


----------



## kentix

Here's what the National Park Service says:

When the early explorers first viewed the Everglades long ago, they saw large fields of grass.
So they began to call it the *Ever-Glades*:

*Ever* from the word for_*ever*_ & *Glades* which is an old English word that means a _*grassy open place.*_


----------



## zaffy

And if we didn't mean any specific area, just asking someone a general question, I guess 'the woods' would work the best, right? For example, 

-Would you prefer to spend your summer holiday by the sea or in the woods? 
-Would you prefer to spend your summer holiday by the sea or in a forest?


----------



## JulianStuart

Those both work well.


----------



## zaffy

And this area of woodland might be called:

BE: a wood/the woods
AE: the woods
Right? 

'Forest' doesn't work either in AE or BE as it is much too small, right?

Zdjęcie - 05.07.2020


----------



## kentix

They don't sound too natural to me in AE for two reasons. 1) We don't say "by the sea" usually. We say "at the ocean", or more so "at the beach". 2) "in the woods" or "in a forest" are so vague it sounds weird. It sounds like you're lost, wandering around in the woods for the whole summer hoping to be rescued.

The only real reason to be in the woods is if you are camping or staying in a cabin/house, so that would be part of the question.

Would you prefer to spend your summer at the beach or in a cabin in the woods?

Would you prefer to spend your summer at the beach or camping in the woods?


----------



## JulianStuart

kentix said:


> They don't sound too natural to me in AE for two reasons. 1) We don't say "by the sea" usually. We say "at the ocean", or more so "at the beach". 2) "in the woods" or "in a forest" are so vague it sounds weird. It sounds like you're lost, wandering around in the woods for the whole summer hoping to be rescued.
> 
> The only real reason to be in the woods is if you are camping or staying in a cabin/house, so that would be part of the question.
> 
> Would you prefer to spend your summer at the beach or in a cabin in the woods?
> 
> Would you prefer to spend your summer at the beach or camping in the woods?


Not disagreeing but I think Zaffy was less concerned about the accommodations than how the location would be described.


----------



## JulianStuart

zaffy said:


> And this area of woodland might be called:
> 
> BE: a wood/the woods
> AE: the woods
> Right?
> 
> 'Forest' doesn't work either in AE or BE as it is much too small, right?
> 
> Zdjęcie - 05.07.2020


I'd call it a strip of woodland, given its shape.  If it were in England, it might have a name {Name} Wood.


----------



## kentix

I understand that but if you never hear it that way you can't say it's described that way.

For example, what I would really expect to hear in real life is something like:

_For our vacation we are going camping in the Smokies._

Neither woods nor forest would be mentioned.

The general question might be:
For vacation would you prefer a hotel at the the beach or a campsite in the woods?


----------



## london calling

JulianStuart said:


> Those both work well.


They do indeed, in BE at least. 

And all the Brits sing:

Oh I do like to be beside the seaside
Oh I do like to be beside the sea!


----------



## Roxxxannne

zaffy said:


> And if we didn't mean any specific area, just asking someone a general question, I guess 'the woods' would work the best, right? For example,
> 
> -Would you prefer to spend your summer holiday by the sea or in the woods?
> -Would you prefer to spend your summer holiday by the sea or in a forest?


It depends on whether you are asking the person if they would rather spend their land-based holiday in a relatively small wooded area, definitely with some light pollution at night (i.e. woods), or in a vast area of lovely tall spruces, pines and oaks, with an absence of light pollution but a lot of mosquito and black-fly repellent on hand (i.e. forest).  Again, size matters.


----------



## JulianStuart

kentix said:


> I understand that but if you never hear it that way you can't say it's described that way.
> 
> For example, what I would really expect to hear in real life is something like:
> 
> _For our vacation we are going camping in the Smokies._
> 
> Neither woods nor forest would be mentioned.
> 
> The general question might be:
> For vacation would you prefer a hotel at the the beach or a campsite in the woods?


Zaffy is only making up sentences to force people to declare which word they would use for a certain {group of trees}.  The context and likelihood of the sentence being idiomatic or uttered seems secondary


----------



## kentix

I understand that, too, but asking what is most natural in a sentence that is unlikely ever to be used because it isn't natural is somewhat meaningless in my book. Which way wouldn't you say this most??


----------



## zaffy

JulianStuart said:


> I'd call it a strip of woodland, given its shape.



And the small one next to it?


----------



## JulianStuart

zaffy said:


> And the small one next to it?
> 
> View attachment 43825


A small group of trees or a copse or a woodland fragment - I might even make up a word if you keep forcing us - a woodlet?


----------



## Roxxxannne

JulianStuart said:


> I'd call it a strip of woodland, given its shape.  If it were in England, it might have a name {Name} Wood.


I agree about the 'strip of woodland.'
Here are some words that I might use with the meanings I would give, unsanctioned by any dictionary, if asked:
-- beauty strip: a narrow strip of trees that acts as a sort of hedge or fence, keeping an unpleasant landscape out of sight.  For instance, beauty strips run alongside highways (where they shield residents of a neighborhood from seeing a highway) and along heavily clearcut land (where they keep people on roads bordering the clear cut from seeing the devastation).
-- stand of trees or stand of [tree species]: a very roughly circular group of trees, minimum 12-15 meters in diameter.
-- grove: a wooded area, usually tended.  They can usually be traversed on foot in approximately five minutes or less. The trees in zaffy's blue square might be considered a grove (among other things).
-- pinetum: a grove specifically of pine trees.
-- thicket: small, dense growth of trees and bushes, much harder to walk through than a grove.
-- spinney: grove-sized area of woodland less dense than a thicket but containing some underbrush.


----------



## JulianStuart

Roxxxannne said:


> I agree about the 'strip of woodland.'
> Here are some words that I might use with the meanings I would give, unsanctioned by any dictionary, if asked:
> -- beauty strip: a narrow strip of trees that acts as a sort of hedge or fence, keeping an unpleasant landscape out of sight.  For instance, beauty strips run alongside highways (where they shield residents of a neighborhood from seeing a highway) and along heavily clearcut land (where they keep people on roads bordering the clear cut from seeing the devastation).
> -- stand of trees or stand of [tree species]: a very roughly circular group of trees, minimum 12-15 meters in diameter.
> -- grove: a wooded area, usually tended.  They can usually be traversed on foot in approximately five minutes or less. The trees in zaffy's blue square might be considered a grove (among other things).
> -- pinetum: a grove specifically of pine trees.
> -- thicket: small, dense growth of trees and bushes, much harder to walk through than a grove.
> -- spinney: grove-sized area of woodland less dense than a thicket but containing some underbrush.


You have the best words  But if the _only_ choice were between a wood/woods and a forest, what would you go for? (Just kidding, of  copse)  I was going to say that a stand sounds like a copse but, after checking the dictionary, it seems maybe not.
BE (Collins) 
• a growth of plants in a particular area, esp trees _in a forest_ or a crop in a field
AE (Random House ) 
• the growing trees, or those of a particular species or grade, in a given area. 
• a standing growth, as of grass, wheat, etc.


----------



## zaffy

And does this work?

'Woods are my home. I love spending time surrounded by trees.'


----------



## Steven David

zaffy said:


> And does this work?
> 
> 'Woods are my home. I love spending time surrounded by trees.'




It works with the definite article.

The woods are my home. I love spending time surrounded by trees. 

So, yes, generally speaking, this is something that someone could say.


----------

