Discussion Forum
Log In
Register
RSS
12:23am
2008/01/26
Offline
My wife and I were discussing this saying. I was adamant that it is 'for' and not 'through'. Obviously my wife disagrees because 'through' makes more sense.
We are both familiar with the meaning. The meaning being one is overconcerned about details and cannot see the big picture.
So…please, confirm that I am correct and my wife is absolutely wrong. :D ;)
-Kierf!
7:21am
2008/01/16
Offline
I'm for for, for it is the only way that I've ever heard it. I predict your wife's through is through.
8:08am
2008/01/26
Offline
I've only heard for. I texted 4 people last night, all came back saying through, but were not sure since I had mentioned it.
They're gonna get pwned! :D
8:16am
2007/08/02
Offline
Yes, it's definitely "You can't see the forest for the trees." It makes perfect sense because "for" here means "because of" or "due to." Ask your wife is she knows the saying about "For want of a nail." It's the same "for."
Here's the entry for "can't see the forest for the trees" in the Dictionary of Cultural Literacy.
10:05am
"For" the trees. Seeing the forest "through" the trees doesn't make sense because if you look through the trees, you are looking past the trees to the non-forest area beyond, which is not the forest. You can see the forest through the window, for example, but not through the trees.
However, this is an interesting question. Perhaps we should add a section to our training manual about confused idioms, but this might be putting all our eggs before the horse.
5:34pm
2007/09/16
Offline
Oh dear.
Somehow I picked the phrase up long ago as "can't see the trees for the forest." I'm not alone (this version gets 2810 hits in Google), but definitely in the minority.
Still, you can argue it makes sense either way. (I'll take whatever scrap of comfort I can get.)
10:14am
2007/08/02
Offline
I don't know the history of the saying, but I have a hunch there are probably analogous expressions in other languages. Anyone know of one?
3:02pm
2007/08/08
Offline
I have a strong recollection that his saying came from Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man, which came out in 1952. I read this book (begrudgingly) in high school, and I'm pretty sure I remember reading it as well as being informed by my English teacher that this was where the phrase originated. My memory of this book is hazy at best (if not subconsciously blocked), but what vague memory I do have of the entry is that it was dialog between two characters as they traveled by car next to a forest.
I can't seem to find a searchable online excerpt, and frankly I don't have the patience even to scan that book again, so maybe if someone here has that book or is more familiar with it, they can back me up. :)
5:48pm
2007/09/16
Offline
I hate to destroy your confidence in your English teacher, but here's an example of the phrase from 1861.
The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms (excerpt here) puts it as early as 1546.
12:59am
Grant Barrett said:
Yes, it's definitely “You can't see the forest for the trees.” It makes perfect sense because “for” here means “because of” or “due to.” Ask your wife is she knows the saying about “For want of a nail.” It's the same “for.”
Here's the entry for “can't see the forest for the trees” in the Dictionary of Cultural Literacy.
Thanks for the clarification! I've long been confused about this phrase, since, as it's written, I thought it could have the opposite meaning, as in being too focused on the big picture to notice details. It makes much more sense to me now, knowing what the intended meaning of "for" was in this phrase.
11:53am
2008/01/16
Offline
dilettante said
“can't see the trees for the forest.”
I've heard this many times, often jocularly, but basically meaning the opposite of "can't see the forest for the trees."
In other words, you can't see the details because the "big-picture" is clouding your vision (an equally hazardous state to be in!).
7:21am
2008/01/30
Offline
yep, you can't see the big picture because the details, the minutiae get in the way, fill up your vision. you can't see the forest because you are standing in the middle of it, with the trees, up close and personal, all around you. so, because "for" means "because of," you "can't see the forest for the trees."
4:43pm
2007/09/16
Offline
Just came across an alternate version while (or whilst) reading Michael Palin's "Diaries 1969-1979":
"losing sight of the wood for the trees"
Is this version more common in the UK?
9:15pm
2007/08/02
Offline
1546? Wow.
Thanks for that, dilettante. I'm still convinced there must be simliarly apt phrases in other languages -- maybe about trees, maybe not.
7:39am
2009/10/19
Offline
I am writing something that will be translated, and I found myself using this phrase, so out of curiosity I searched for its use in other languages. I found this page, of course, but I also found "los árboles nos impiden ver el bosque" in Spanish and "inte se skogen för alla träd" in Swedish.
Update: In the discussion forums on wordreference.com I found a thread reporting similar phrases about forests and trees in about a dozen languages, from Greek to Vietnamese. I wonder if the phrases all came from a common origin or arose independently?
Now it's time to stop searching the internet and get back to writing!
4:37pm
2009/08/18
Offline
dilettante said
Just came across an alternate version while (or whilst) reading Michael Palin's "Diaries 1969-1979":"losing sight of the wood for the trees"
Is this version more common in the UK?
I've encountered this twice in the past week, one definitely from England, the other unknown but very possibly UK.
