• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is this the right use of a phrase?

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: 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.
Click to expand...

Isn't that only true when for is preceded by a comma?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

I'm just altering it.
 
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.
Click to expand...

He used it just fine. It's an idiom. It doesn't have to make sense as long as it is used properly.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Originally posted by: chuckywang
The phrase originally is "can't see the forest for the trees."

I'm just altering it.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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'.

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

I'm just altering it.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
😕 have you never heard this phrase?

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

Check if this sounds better:

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

Check if this sounds better:

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

"learnt" is kind of archaic isn't it?
 
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."
 
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."
 
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.
Click to expand...
Originally posted by: chuckywang
The phrase originally is "can't see the forest for the trees."

I'm just altering it.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
😕 have you never heard this phrase?
Click to expand...

yeah, many times. I think you may be confused. No matter: chucky has a much better one now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top