starting

The bee flies from flower to flower and plant to plant. From some plants it carries away pollen. On other plants it drops off pollen. In this way the bee carries pollen from one plant to another. The pollen helps new plants to grow. While the bee gets food, it is also starting new plants.



I wonder if there is any difference between "1" and "2"
1. While the bee gets food, it is also starting new plants.
2. While the bee gets food, it also starts new plants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wowenglish1

The bee flies from flower to flower and plant to plant. From some plants it carries away pollen. On other plants it drops off pollen. In this way the bee carries pollen from one plant to another. The pollen helps new plants to grow. While the bee gets food, it is also starting new plants.



I wonder if there is any difference between "1" and "2"
1. While the bee gets food, it is also starting new plants.
2. While the bee gets food, it also starts new plants.

---

Hi wowenglish,
Your English is good enough for you to have an opinion.
Do you think there is a difference? If so, what do you think it might be.

I was thinking that a flower was a plant. Am I right or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by euncu

I was thinking that a flower was a plant. Am I right or not?

---

A flower is a part of some plants.
Some other plants, such as conifers (gymnosperms), and fungi, reproduce by spores, and don't bother with flowers.
Besides, "from flower to flower" doesn't necessarily mean "from plant to plant" because the former could refer to separate flowers on the same plant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raymott

A flower is a part of some plants.

---

If you mean, a flower might be a part of a plant such as the ones on some shrubs, it's OK.

But some flowers stand on their own such as daisies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raymott

Besides, "from flower to flower" doesn't necessarily mean "from plant to plant" because the former could refer to separate flowers on the same plant.

---

But in which way we could say from one flower to another, to refer to the flowers, which are not on the same plants, the ones stand alone? Because even if we say "one flower to another" it is still not be giving us the information that they are on different plants. While I'm saying this, in my mind, I have the image of a field that is full of different kind of flowers(and with the many of the same kind). How to say while I'm meaning to say;"from one daisy to a poppy " or "from one poppy to another" but without specifying, sticking strictly to the word "flower". This sounds really terrible when we say;from a flower which is on a plant to another flower which is on a different one(plant). So, I just can't see a way to break the vagueness that you pointed out.

Maybe, it saves us the trouble to say ;"The bee flies from flower to flower"
by regarding "from plant to plant" as redundant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by euncu

If you mean, a flower might be a part of a plant such as the ones on some shrubs, it's OK.

But some flowers stand on their own such as daisies.



But in which way we could say from one flower to another, to refer to the flowers, which are not on the same plants, the ones stand alone? Because even if we say "one flower to another" it is still not be giving us the information that they are on different plants. While I'm saying this, in my mind, I have the image of a field that is full of different kind of flowers(and with the many of the same kind). How to say while I'm meaning to say;"from one daisy to a poppy " or "from one poppy to another" but without specifying, sticking strictly to the word "flower". This sounds really terrible when we say;from a flower which is on a plant to another flower which is on a different one(plant). So, I just can't see a way to break the vagueness that you pointed out.

Maybe, it saves us the trouble to say ;"The bee flies from flower to flower"
by regarding "from plant to plant" as redundant.

---

They could fly from flower to flower on the same plant, and also from plant to plant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by euncu

If you mean, a flower might be a part of a plant such as the ones on some shrubs, it's OK.

But some flowers stand on their own such as daisies.
You don't get flowers without some other part of a plant.
Sometimes bulbs will push up a flower before the leaves appear, but flowers don't appear out of nowhere. A flower is the reproductive organ of angiosperms (flowering plants).


But in which way we could say from one flower to another, to refer to the flowers, which are not on the same plants, the ones stand alone? Because even if we say "one flower to another" it is still not be giving us the information that they are on different plants. While I'm saying this, in my mind, I have the image of a field that is full of different kind of flowers(and with the many of the same kind). How to say while I'm meaning to say;"from one daisy to a poppy " or "from one poppy to another" but without specifying, sticking strictly to the word "flower". This sounds really terrible when we say;from a flower which is on a plant to another flower which is on a different one(plant). So, I just can't see a way to break the vagueness that you pointed out.

Maybe, it saves us the trouble to say ;"The bee flies from flower to flower"
by regarding "from plant to plant" as redundant.

---

Sorry, I can't see the problem. You can say whatever you mean.
I was merely pointing out that 'flower' does not mean 'plant'. The flower of a flowering plant excludes the roots and branches, etc.
Generally the calyx would be the part that indicates where the flower starts and the stem ends. If you're speaking of cut flowers, you'd include the stem with 'flower'.
Colloquially you could refer to some full plants as flowers, if they only produce one flower, but a rose bush, for example, is not called a flower in English.
Anyhow, I didn't mean to start a botany lesson! :-D