Wordcraft Home Page Wordcraft Community Home Page Forums Potpourri It probably was too dark, actually ...
Wordcraft Community Home Page Forums Potpourri It probably was too dark, actually ...Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| It probably was too dark, actually ... | Login/Join |
Member |
There was a great mixed metaphor used on the UK TV show The Apprentice just now: "He's so far up Jim's ... behind ... that he can't see the wood for the trees".  Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. | ||
|
Member |
You just broke the world speed record for posting comments about The Apprentice. She said that less than half an hour ago! "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson. | |||
|
Member |
The wood from the trees? Funny! | |||
|
| Member |
"Can't see the wood for the trees" is a common enough saying here though not in quite that context.  "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson. | |||
|
| Member |
I'm never quite sure of the origin of that phrase. Does it mean "can't see the wood (small area of land covered with trees) for the trees (that make it up)"? Or "can't see the wood (fibrous material forming the trunk and branches of a tree) for the trees (made out of it)"? Or is it deliberately ambiguous between the two? | |||
|
| Member |
I've always taken it to mean that the person can't see the larger picture because of concentrating on the detail; the wood being the larger picture, and the trees being the detail. Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. | |||
|
| <Proofreader> |
I've always heard it as "Can't see the forest for the trees." | ||
|
| Member |
That whole British/American thing is always so confusing. I thought the whole post was about how the speaker messed up on the metaphor of not seeing the forest for the trees.  | |||
|
| Member |
It was about, because when I heard it I thought the same thing, the mixed metaphor of not being able to see the wood for the trees while being "up Jim's behind". "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson. | |||
|
| Member |
Don't Americans use the word 'wood' to mean 'forest'? I had no idea that that use was especially British. | |||
|
| <Proofreader> |
Poetically | ||
|
| Member |
I don't regard "wood" and "forest" as synonyms. To me a wood is a lot smaller than a forest, although I'm not sure what the dividing-line is. Also it occurs to me that the word "wood" is often used in the plural even when only one such area is referred to, e.g. "a walk in the woods". Anyone know why? | |||
|
| <Proofreader> |
If you walk through the forest, you're in the woods; if you walk through the lumberyard, you're surrounded by wood. And Congressman Weiner is fascinated by his wood. | ||
|
| Member |
Yes, I think so too. In my question above I should have said 'small forest' really, or 'wooded area' to be more exact. | |||
|
| Member |
If you go down to the wood today, you're sure of a big surprise... | |||
|
| <Proofreader> |
If you go down on the wood today... | ||
|
| Member |
I stand corrected. (ahem) *sings* ♫ Today's the day the texter bares all in his twitpic. ♫This message has been edited. Last edited by: Alphabet Soup, | |||
|
| Member |
In the U.S. we say that we'll walk through the "woods," not the "wood." Do you, in England, walk through the "wood?" | |||
|
| Member |
We use either. "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson. | |||
|
| Member |
I presume that Proofreader was joking in his post (punning on the obscene meaning of "wood"), but it left me wondering what the actual words to "Teddy Bears' Picnic" are. A Google search revealed no fewer than three different versions: "if you go down to the woods today..." "if you go down in the woods today..." "if you go out in the woods today..." The one I'm most familiar with is the second one, made famous in the 1932 recording by Henry Hall and his Orchestra. Does anyone know which is the original? Regarding Kalleh's point about "walk in the wood" versus "walk in the woods", I think there's a slight difference of nuance. There's a small wooded area near here known as "Twerton Wood", and I might say "I'm going for a walk in the wood", referring to that specific area of woodland. "A walk in the woods" strikes me as more generic, referring to any wooded area. Do Americans not generally use the term "wood" (singular) to mean "a small area of woodland", then? What term do they use? | |||
|
| Member |
Way back in October 2008 I posted about the sinister and evil lyrics to Teddy Bears' Picnic on my blog. You don't need to go there to look. I'll repost it below.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson. | |||
|
| Member |
| |||
|
| Member |
We don't just walk, occasionally we whiffle. (If the wood is sufficiently tulgey, that is.) | |||
|
| <Proofreader> |
At slow points in the job I would do that but the boss told me not to "whittle while you work." | ||
|
| Member |
You ain't just whifflin' Dixie | |||
|
| Member |
It's really not surprising that Teddy Bears' Picnic is macabre. Most fairy tales are too, and the tune is usually played in a "macabre minor" key. As for Congressman Weiner's faux pas, it's not true - it's a phallusy. As for a "wood" being smaller than a forest, what make you of Macbeth? "Macbeth shall never vanquished be until Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill Shall come against him." It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. -J. Krishnamurti | |||
|
| <Proofreader> |
"Ring around the rosy" was about the Black Death. | ||
|
| Member |
I don't know the answer to this, but how's this for a guess?
http://www.visitdunkeld.com/birnam-wood.htm So Great Birnam Wood was part of the Royal Forest. And...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_forest So presumably, Birnam Wood was the wooded area of the Royal Forest. Whadda ya think? Plausible? | |||
|
| Member |
Seemingly, this is a misconception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_a_Ring_o%27_Roses | |||
|
| Member |
Interesting because I always thought it was about the plague. | |||
|
| <Proofreader> |
That's the last time I try to learn something. | ||
|
| Member |
Well, my research into the subject is far from thorough. I've only read the article on Wikipedia (I haven't even checked the citations,) so I wouldn't like to vouch for the accuracy of the claim. But, in my opinion, the Wikipedians make quite a compelling argument. Apparently the rhyme doesn't appear in print before 1881 and it isn't until after WWII that claims start to arise connecting it to the plague. In its earliest known incarnations, the poem doesn't contain the elements which supposedly connect it to the plague and apparently, those which do aren't actually close descriptions of the symptoms. It seems that the plague interpretation is a twentieth century projection pushed onto this poem despite both the lack of historical evidence to support it and the fact that the evidence which is available suggests a different origin. | |||
|
| Member |
It's not much of an authority, but QI debunked the plague story in one episode for the same reasons. Probably the QI elves had read Wikipedia. Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. | |||
|
| Member |
And here it is (from 4:15) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM63PU4_FdQ I wonder whether the elves read Wikipedia or the Wikipedians watch QI  | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Wordcraft Home Page Wordcraft Community Home Page Forums Potpourri It probably was too dark, actually ...
Wordcraft Community Home Page Forums Potpourri It probably was too dark, actually ...Copyright © 2002-12