4 ms·

> I do not find trees looking similar at all. When folks say "forest", like "I'm going to go hiking in the forest", they usually don't specify what species or

> I do not find trees looking similar at all. When folks say "forest", like "I'm going to go hiking in the forest", they usually don't specify what species or genus of tree. A street could be lined with "trees", or a "tree" could fall on someone's car. We categorize trees together because they tend to occupy the same enough overall role and profile. Now if there was a "baobob tree" forest, or a "palm tree" fell on a car, those are distinct to merit specification.

Blikkentrekker 5y ago
> When folks say "forest", like "I'm going to go hiking in the forest", they usually don't specify what species or genus of tree. A street could be lined with "trees", or a "tree" could fall on someone's car. We categorize trees together because they tend to occupy the same enough overall role and profile. That sounds like something that could very much be different in different languages.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> When folks say "forest", like "I'm going to go hiking in the forest", they usually don't specify what species or genus of tree. well, no, because there aren’t usually multiple forests that could be meant that would be disambiguated to a single forest (warranting the definite article) by genus of trees, there is either one candidate (requiring no qualification) or multiple but needing some other qualification (like specific name of the forest or direction from the current location.)
- intuitionist 5y ago
  I disagree. Within walking distance of my suburban (Eastern US) home, there’s a patch of woods that’s mostly oaks and maples, a larger patch that’s oak-hickory, and a large park that’s primarily beech-maple. Out West, you could walk among redwoods, or bishop pine, or coast live oak or tanoak.
swiley 5y ago
I'm pretty sure I've heard people talk about the kinds of trees in forests like that before. I've certainly heard people mention the kinds of trees when talking about small stands of trees (ex: "this stand of pines over here.")

Blikkentrekker 5y ago

> When folks say "forest", like "I'm going to go hiking in the forest", they usually don't specify what species or genus of tree. A street could be lined with "trees", or a "tree" could fall on someone's car. We categorize trees together because they tend to occupy the same enough overall role and profile. That sounds like something that could very much be different in different languages.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> When folks say "forest", like "I'm going to go hiking in the forest", they usually don't specify what species or genus of tree. well, no, because there aren’t usually multiple forests that could be meant that would be disambiguated to a single forest (warranting the definite article) by genus of trees, there is either one candidate (requiring no qualification) or multiple but needing some other qualification (like specific name of the forest or direction from the current location.)

intuitionist 5y ago
I disagree. Within walking distance of my suburban (Eastern US) home, there’s a patch of woods that’s mostly oaks and maples, a larger patch that’s oak-hickory, and a large park that’s primarily beech-maple. Out West, you could walk among redwoods, or bishop pine, or coast live oak or tanoak.

swiley 5y ago

I'm pretty sure I've heard people talk about the kinds of trees in forests like that before. I've certainly heard people mention the kinds of trees when talking about small stands of trees (ex: "this stand of pines over here.")