Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

How did this phrase originate grammatically? I’m especially interested in the fragment “for the trees”.

See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/see_the_forest_for_the_trees for its definition.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 7 down vote accepted

In English, this saying goes back at least to the 16th century:

1546 J. HEYWOOD Prov. II. iv. (1867) 51 Plentie is nodeintie, ye see not your owne ease. I see, ye can not see the wood for trees.Oxford English Dictionary

This is for in the sense of “on account of”, “because of”, which goes back as far as Old English. (“for”, Online Etymology Dictionary)

You can read the saying as:

Cannot see the forest because of the trees.

share|improve this answer
2  
oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/for?q=for Sense 5 "Having [the thing mentioned] as a reason or cause". Bear in mind that this is an idiomatic expression at least 450 years old. –  Andrew Leach Oct 3 '12 at 7:32
1  
@MarkBeadles Lol -- it's not that people are not familiar (one must avoid making this error of judgment) -- transparency is subjective. –  Kris Oct 3 '12 at 12:42
1  
@Kris Do you mean you are skeptical that "for" can ever be interpreted as "on account of/because of", or just in the OP's phrase? If the latter, what do you think the phrase means? –  MετάEd Oct 3 '12 at 13:50
1  
@Kris If the latter, what do you think the phrase means? –  MετάEd Oct 3 '12 at 14:24
2  
@HikeDanakian I simply mean that "cannot see the forest on account of the trees" (my natural reading of the phrase) is the meaning that to me is obvious and can be derived directly from the meaning of its constituent parts. I realize that transparency is a personal thing. It seems evident from this discussion that some people regard the phrase as truly idiomatic, with a "frozen" meaning that is no longer clear from looking at its parts. My statement above was that I was surprised (genuinely, not rhetorically) that this is the case. –  Mark Beadles Oct 6 '12 at 2:39

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.