Can you see the forest through the trees

It really doesn't matter from where you are looking, in the forest or out of the forest, because you can focus on only a few trees from either perspective. I agree that "for" is the word, but on a contrary note, Precise Edit in post number 5 above made me picture a situation in which I may be standing inside of the forest looking between and around through the trees until all I see is outside of the forest.

In this case I could not see the forest because I would be looking through the trees. This is not what it is, so don't let it lead you astray. I too have been seeking the correct way to say I just changed a few words I reworded it I've encountered this twice in the past week, one definitely from England, the other unknown but very possibly UK. 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.

Update: In the discussion forums on wordreference. I wonder if the phrases all came from a common origin or arose independently? Thanks for that, dilettante. I'm still convinced there must be simliarly apt phrases in other languages -- maybe about trees, maybe not. Just came across an alternate version while or whilst reading Michael Palin's "Diaries ":. 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! 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. I hate to destroy your confidence in your English teacher, but here's an example of the phrase from The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms excerpt here puts it as early as I have a strong recollection that his saying came from Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man , which came out in 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. I don't know the history of the saying, but I have a hunch there are probably analogous expressions in other languages.

Subscribe to the A Way with Words newsletter! Martha and Grant send occasional messages with language headlines, event announcements, wordy tidbits, and episode reminders.

However, they were not seen to venture far into the surrounding deciduous forest. You see, I'd always thought of him as the boy whom Great-aunt Lucia described having seen. He shrank, as from some one who inflicted pain as a child, unwittingly, to see what the effect would be. Also, can't see the wood for the trees. Focus only on small details and fail to understand larger plans or principles, as in Alex argues about petty cash and overlooks the budget—he can't see the forest for the trees.

This expression was already a proverb in John Heywood's collection. Just between us: it's complicated. Ask the Editors 'Everyday' vs. What Is 'Semantic Bleaching'? How 'literally' can mean "figuratively".

Literally How to use a word that literally drives some pe Is Singular 'They' a Better Choice? The awkward case of 'his or her'. Take the quiz.