Is tree 'living thing'?

[Ju]

Is tree 'living thing'?

Tks.

[BobK]

Is a tree a 'living thing'?

Tks.

Yes - if it's alive, that is (). As a rule of thumb, if it's producing new leaves it's alive. (Of course, that rule of thumb doesn't work with all trees and at all times - generally, not in winter, for example (when it produces no new leaves, although it breathes, processes nourishing things, pumps great quantities of water from under the ground, and continues to grow (more slowly, but it grows I believe: that's why you see growth-rings when you cut wood). But a living deciduous tree, having spent 4 or 5 months apparently 'dead' to most intents and purposes, produces new leaves in the Spring.)


b

[Pokemon]

Is tree 'living thing'?

Tks.

If you mean 'a living being', no, it is not. It's an inamate object (unless you belong to druids yourself). I can't see how 'living' can combine with 'thing'. It's a self-contradicting phrase.

[Rover_KE]

If you mean 'a living being', no, it is not. It's an inamate object (unless you belong to druids yourself). I can't see how 'living' can combine with 'thing'. It's a self-contradicting phrase.

That's not right, Pokemon. Ju didn't say 'a living being'. A growing tree is definitely a living thing and in no way inanimate.

Rover

[Pokemon]

That's not right, Pokemon. Ju didn't say 'a living being'. A growing tree is definitely a living thing and in no way inanimate.

Rover

For people with vivid imagination even stones can speak. But we are discussing grammar, aren't we? In terms of grammar, 'tree' belongs to the class of inanimate objects. Can you refer to a tree as 'he' or 'she'? No. 'There is a tree growing in the yard. It's green'. Now I'd like to hear your arguments.

[5jj]

For people with vivid imagination even stones can speak. But we are discussing grammar, aren't we? In terms of grammar, 'tree' belongs to the class of inanimate objects. Can you refer to a tree as 'he' or 'she'? No. 'There is a tree growing in the yard. It's green'. Now I'd like to hear your arguments.

Well, my dictionary defines inanimate as: not alive in the way that people, animals and plants are. (my emphasis added.)

As far as English grammar is concerned, the noun tree is, crudely expressed, a thing rather than a person. We therefore use it rather than he/she and which rather than who. We do the same with animals, and those purring at my feet are certainly living.

The tree itself is living; it is not inanimate.

[SoothingDave]

Is tree 'living thing'?

Tks.

Is it possible to kill a tree?

Then it must be living.

[BobK]

Is it possible to kill a tree?

Then it must be living.

Indeed. A dead tree (for example, one treated with Paraquat), is a dead thing and a living tree is a living thing. Sheesh.

b

[SoothingDave]

And for some weaker trees, even a single quat will do.

[Raymott]

For people with vivid imagination even stones can speak. But we are discussing grammar, aren't we?
No, we seem to be discussing semantics, and perhaps biology. Bob fixed the grammar in the first reply.

In terms of grammar, 'tree' belongs to the class of inanimate objects.
No.
Can you refer to a tree as 'he' or 'she'? No. 'There is a tree growing in the yard. It's green'. Now I'd like to hear your arguments.
What argument do you want? That something which we refer to as "it" can be living? You need to learn just a little bit about Biology (the science of living things - you could start with Botany) and it should all become clear.

PS: I guess you don't even know that humans and plants evolved from a common ancestor?