Is this the right use of a phrase?

[chuckywang]

"Over the last five years, I have learned to see the forest for the trees."

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: chuckywang
"Over the last five years, I have learned to see the forest for the trees."

I don't understand it, so I will say no lol

 

[atybimf]

I think it's correct.

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: chuckywang
"Over the last five years, I have learned to see the forest for the trees."

I don't understand it, so I will say no lol

It means to learn to see the big picture and not the details.

 

[loic2003]

no. The use of 'for' in the above phrase from which it originated ('can't see the forest for the trees') is used in the context meaning 'because of the trees', so the alteration you've made effectively says 'Over the last five years, I have learned to see the forest because of the trees' which unless used in some bizzare context, I don't think makes sense...

maybe use some analogy like focusing vision or 'the fog has lifed' or soemthing... I don't know what you're writing here.

 

[chuckywang]

dp

 

[neutralizer]

Originally posted by: loic2003
no. The use of 'for' in the above phrase from which it originated ('can't see the forest for the trees') is used in the context meaning 'because of the trees', so the alteration you've made effectively says 'Over the last five years, I have learned to see the forest because of the trees' which unless used in some bizzare context, I don't think makes sense...

maybe use some analogy like focusing vision or 'the fog has lifed' or soemthing... I don't know what you're writing here.

Isn't that only true when for is preceded by a comma?

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: loic2003
no. The use of 'for' in the above phrase from which it originated ('can't see the forest for the trees') is used in the context meaning 'because of the trees', so the alteration you've made effectively says 'Over the last five years, I have learned to see the forest because of the trees' which unless used in some bizzare context, I don't think makes sense...

maybe use some analogy like focusing vision or 'the fog has lifed' or soemthing... I don't know what you're writing here.

The phrase originally is "can't see the forest for the trees."

I'm just altering it.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: loic2003
no. The use of 'for' in the above phrase from which it originated ('can't see the forest for the trees') is used in the context meaning 'because of the trees', so the alteration you've made effectively says 'Over the last five years, I have learned to see the forest because of the trees' which unless used in some bizzare context, I don't think makes sense...

maybe use some analogy like focusing vision or 'the fog has lifed' or soemthing... I don't know what you're writing here.

He used it just fine. It's an idiom. It doesn't have to make sense as long as it is used properly.

 

[loic2003]

Originally posted by: loic2003
no. The use of 'for' in the above phrase from which it originated ('can't see the forest for the trees') is used in the context meaning 'because of the trees', so the alteration you've made effectively says 'Over the last five years, I have learned to see the forest because of the trees' which unless used in some bizzare context, I don't think makes sense...

maybe use some analogy like focusing vision or 'the fog has lifed' or soemthing... I don't know what you're writing here.

Originally posted by: chuckywang
The phrase originally is "can't see the forest for the trees."

I'm just altering it.

I understand this, but I don't think it mases sense.

What context are you using it in? Something to do with actually looking at trees?

Replace the word 'for' in your version with the word 'because of' and you'll see that it doesn't make sense.

 

[Pepsi90919]

Originally posted by: loic2003
no. The use of 'for' in the above phrase from which it originated ('can't see the forest for the trees') is used in the context meaning 'because of the trees', so the alteration you've made effectively says 'Over the last five years, I have learned to see the forest because of the trees' which unless used in some bizzare context, I don't think makes sense...

maybe use some analogy like focusing vision or 'the fog has lifed' or soemthing... I don't know what you're writing here.

it's fairly obvious, and his explanation, and your explanation, both mean the same thing. you can't see the forest because of the trees is more commonly said 'can't see the forest for the trees'.

 

[Pepsi90919]

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: loic2003
no. The use of 'for' in the above phrase from which it originated ('can't see the forest for the trees') is used in the context meaning 'because of the trees', so the alteration you've made effectively says 'Over the last five years, I have learned to see the forest because of the trees' which unless used in some bizzare context, I don't think makes sense...

maybe use some analogy like focusing vision or 'the fog has lifed' or soemthing... I don't know what you're writing here.

Originally posted by: chuckywang
The phrase originally is "can't see the forest for the trees."

I'm just altering it.

I understand this, but I don't think it mases sense.

What context are you using it in? Something to do with actually looking at trees?

Replace the word 'for' in your version with the word 'because of' and you'll see that it doesn't make sense.

have you never heard this phrase?

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: chuckywang
"Over the last five years, I have learned to see the forest for the trees."

Check if this sounds better:

Over the past five years, I have learnt to see the forest for the trees.

 

[cjgallen]

Original means: CAN'T see the forest because of the trees.
Yours means: you CAN see the forest because of the trees.

Yours sounds wrong.

 

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: chuckywang
"Over the last five years, I have learned to see the forest for the trees."

Check if this sounds better:

Over the past five years, I have learnt to see the forest for the trees.

"learnt" is kind of archaic isn't it?

 

[Lonyo]

Wood.

 

[Mrvile]

You have learned to see the forest for the trees. That means that what you see in a forest are the trees. I thought you were going for a "now I see the big picture" kind of meaning, so you should be saying it the other way around...something like "I have learned to see the forest instead of just the trees."

 

[chuckywang]

Ok, you make convincing arguments. I just changed it to "Over the last five years, I have learned to never lose sight of the big picture."

 

[loic2003]

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: loic2003
no. The use of 'for' in the above phrase from which it originated ('can't see the forest for the trees') is used in the context meaning 'because of the trees', so the alteration you've made effectively says 'Over the last five years, I have learned to see the forest because of the trees' which unless used in some bizzare context, I don't think makes sense...

maybe use some analogy like focusing vision or 'the fog has lifed' or soemthing... I don't know what you're writing here.

Originally posted by: chuckywang
The phrase originally is "can't see the forest for the trees."

I'm just altering it.

I understand this, but I don't think it mases sense.

What context are you using it in? Something to do with actually looking at trees?

Replace the word 'for' in your version with the word 'because of' and you'll see that it doesn't make sense.

have you never heard this phrase?

yeah, many times. I think you may be confused. No matter: chucky has a much better one now.

 

[ActuaryTm]

"Over the last five years, I have learned to seed the forest for the trees."