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. :roll:

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?

 

[Pokemon]

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.

1) I don't think you would refer to the amiable creature purring at your feet as 'it'. "She is cute", we usually say, or "I love him so much". If I ask about a tree growing in your garden "Is it a he or a she?" you'd probably think me to be crazy. It's not a coincidence that 'tree' can't be referred to as 'he' or 'she'. The neuter gender shows that grammatically it's an inanimate noun. 2) Lexically, belonging to organic life and being animate are not the same thing. "The word anima may come from the Proto-Indo-European language root *ane- ("to breathe"), from which animal and animation also originate." (Wikipedia) I think it's only about animals (including humans, of course)that we can say 'animate objects'. 3) "My book says... " - I don't even allow my students to use such arguments. There's only one book that has the truth and nothing but the truth, all other books were written by humans, so the ideas expressed in them can be erroneous. We have a freedom of speech, so anybody can write whatever they want. I don't have to believe everything I read in some book. I thought that prescriptivism was a thing of the past. It looks this narrow-minded outdated ideology still has its adherents among English teachers.

 

[5jj]

1) I don't think you would refer to the amiable creature purring at your feet as 'it'. "She is cute", we usually say, or "I love him so much".
Perhaps, but I certainly refer to living cows and most other living animals as 'it'. I also frequently refer to a human baby as 'it' - as do many other people.

If I ask about a tree growing in your garden "Is it a he or a she?" you'd probably think me to be crazy. It's not a coincidence that 'tree' can't be referred to as 'he' or 'she'. The neuter gender shows that grammatically it's an inanimate noun.
I may be repeating what others have sugested, but it appears to be necessary. The 'neuter gender' shows that we treat it as a 'thing', not a person. It says nothing about whether it is living or not. English grammar has no special class for inanimate things.

2) Lexically, belonging to organic life and being animate are not the same thing. "The word anima may come from the Proto-Indo-European language root *ane- ("to breathe"), from which animal and animation also originate." (Wikipedia) I think it's only about animals (including humans, of course)that we can say 'animate objects'.
That's your opinion. Most of us, and most dictionaries, do not share this opinion.

3) "My book says... " - I don't even allow my students to use such arguments.
I did not use it as conclusive proof. I simply used this as shorthand for: I think you are wrong in your understanding of the word 'animate'; my dictionary, and many other dictionaries support my view. There is therefore a distinct possibility that you are wrong.

There's only one book that has the truth and nothing but the truth, all other books were written by humans,
Well, that's a matter of opinion too. Many of us consider that all books were written by humans, so the ideas expressed in them can be erroneous.

[...]I thought that prescriptivism was a thing of the past. It looks this narrow-minded outdated ideology still has its adherents among English teachers.
I hardly think that stating what the majority of us believe to be the correct understanding of a word can legitimately be described as evidence of 'narrow-minded outdated ideology'

5

 

[Evil Anagram]

Not a Teacher

My two cents:

• The words "animate" and "inanimate" usually, in my experience, refer to whether or not something is capable of movement. Trees, for example, can be referred to as animate since they are capable of movement (as are all living things), or inanimate since humans rarely notice this movement on a moment-to-moment basis. The words can also refer to whether or not something is a living thing.
• A thing can most certainly be living, and "living thing" is most certainly grammatically correct. One can refer to any noun as a thing, though in certain contexts it can be offensive, such as if you wish to imply that someone is less than human.
• Since trees do possess sex, it's certainly acceptable to refer to one by a gendered pronoun, though only botanists are likely to be able to identify the sex. Of course, anthropomorphizing a tree by referring to it with a gendered pronoun is also perfectly acceptable, if a bit whimsical.
• Native English speakers regularly refer to animals using non-gendered pronouns. If I happen to see a squirrel, it would be perfectly acceptable for me to use the pronoun "it" to refer to the animal. If the gender is not obvious, we tend to say, "it." It can be offensive to refer to an adult human as an it, but only in certain contexts.

 

[Pokemon]

"No, we seem to be discussing semantics, and perhaps biology." (Raymott) That's right. You seem to be discussing biology, and I'm discussing linguistics. I'm discussing the noun 'tree', and you're discussing the biological characteristics of the object named 'tree'.

 

[BobK]

:up:
But I think I should clarify something.

2) Lexically, belonging to organic life and being animate are not the same thing. "The word anima may come from the Proto-Indo-European language root *ane- ("to breathe"), from which animal and animation also originate." (Wikipedia) I think it's only about animals (including humans, of course)that we can say 'animate objects'.
That's your opinion. Most of us, and most dictionaries, do not share this opinion.

The 'opinion' here is, as fivejedjon knows, related to the belief about animate objects. Trees do indeed respire. That's why nurse remove plants from hospital wards at night.

b

 

[Raymott]

"No, we seem to be discussing semantics, and perhaps biology." (Raymott) That's right. You seem to be discussing biology, and I'm discussing linguistics. I'm discussing the noun 'tree', and you're discussing the biological characteristics of the object named 'tree'.

OK, I'll agree that grammar trees and parse trees, etc. aren't living. But you bring up an interesting point about some questions that are asked.
"Is a tree a 'living thing'?" is a different question from "Is 'tree' a living thing?" So, I'll also agree that "tree" is a non-living thing, but I don't think that's what the OP meant, because a word, whether a noun or not, is not a living thing (in the literal sense of the word 'living'.)

 

[Pokemon]

"Perhaps, but I certainly refer to living cows and most other living animals as 'it'. I also frequently refer to a human baby as 'it' - as do many other people" (fivejedjon). Don't misinterpret what I'm saying, please. The fact that it's possible to substitute 'he' or 'she' for a noun proves that this noun denotes an animate object. The impossibility of doing so proves that we are dealing with an inanimate object. Language is about what you have in your mind, not what there is in reality.

 

[5jj]

I think we are beginning to head towards angels and pinheads. It's been interesting, but I am leaving now before I start to really confuse students.

 

[Raymott]

The fact that it's possible to substitute 'he' or 'she' for a noun proves that this noun denotes an animate object. The impossibility of doing so proves that we are dealing with an inanimate object.

Absolute nonsense!
In English, we sometimes refer to ships and countries as "she". This is not a sign of life.
I know you'd like to think that this can be resolved without venturing into biology, but any discussion of what is living and what is not requires it. It's not a linguistic matter.

 

[Evil Anagram]

Not a Teacher

"Perhaps, but I certainly refer to living cows and most other living animals as 'it'. I also frequently refer to a human baby as 'it' - as do many other people" (fivejedjon). Don't misinterpret what I'm saying, please. The fact that it's possible to substitute 'he' or 'she' for a noun proves that this noun denotes an animate object. The impossibility of doing so proves that we are dealing with an inanimate object. Language is about what you have in your mind, not what there is in reality.

That's not actually true, since many people can refer to trees using a gendered pronoun, though usually in the process of anthropomorphizing it. Besides, it's completely possible to envision a sexless, genderless entity capable of moving and breathing on its own.