[Vocabulary] Which is more common "wood" or "woods"?

[naweewra]

Hello,

In the dictionary I checked, it says that both the singular "wood" and the plural "woods" can be used to refer to a "forest". I'm just wondering which is more common. Is it a BE VS AE thing?

And is the wood(s) the same as the forest?

Thank you.

Nawee

 

[SoothingDave]

"Woods" is used in AmE.

A "forest" is much bigger. See the "synonyms" section here:

Forest | Define Forest at Dictionary.com

 

[Gillnetter]

"Woods" is used in AmE.

A "forest" is much bigger. See the "synonyms" section here:

Forest | Define Forest at Dictionary.com

This may be regional, but as a young man I worked as a logger (sometimes called a lumberjack) in the states of Oregon and Washington. We would cut down trees, haul them to a landing site, and load trucks with logs which went to a mill. We would call any area in which we worked "the woods". Sometimes we would have contracts near towns and sometimes the contracts were in large state and federal forests. Where we worked made no difference. We would always say that we were going to the woods to work. This carried through to recreational activities. If I was going to go fishing in a stream or a lake I would say that I'm going to the woods today.

 

[SoothingDave]

I can agree with that. I was thinking more of place names than use in casual speech. I, too, would speak about going out in the woods.

 

[Rover_KE]

We've discussed this before but I can't find the thread.

In BE we also say 'There's a wood behind my house'.

 

[Barb_D]

This may be regional, but as a young man I worked as a logger (sometimes called a lumberjack) in the states of Oregon and Washington. We would cut down trees, haul them to a landing site, and load trucks with logs which went to a mill. We would call any area in which we worked "the woods". Sometimes we would have contracts near towns and sometimes the contracts were in large state and federal forests. Where we worked made no difference. We would always say that we were going to the woods to work. This carried through to recreational activities. If I was going to go fishing in a stream or a lake I would say that I'm going to the woods today.

I'm so sorry for disupting this thread, but I'd love to know what the difference is between a logger and a lumberjack. Genuine question.
And I really want to know if I'm the only one wondering if you dress in women's clothing and have buttered scones for tea? Not a genuine question. Well, actually, I'm genuinesly asking if anyone else thought this way, but I don't really wonder about the scones. Or the clothing. Either way, I know you're okay!

 

[panglossa]

As well as the size difference, I would say we use 'forest' rather than 'wood(s)' for areas planted with trees by humans. 'Woods' are normally natural.

 

[panglossa]

I'm so sorry for disupting this thread, but I'd love to know what the difference is between a logger and a lumberjack. Genuine question.
And I really want to know if I'm the only one wondering if you dress in women's clothing and have buttered scones for tea? Not a genuine question. Well, actually, I'm genuinesly asking if anyone else thought this way, but I don't really wonder about the scones. Or the clothing. Either way, I know you're okay!

Just a guess, but a logger, I suppose, could be anyone who works with logs, including operating machinery in a sawmill, whereas a lumberjack would probably be someone who goes out there and actually chops the trees down...(or, if you believe Monty Python, puts on women's clothes and hangs around in bars :lol

 

[5jj]

As well as the size difference, I would say we use 'forest' rather than 'wood(s)' for areas planted with trees by humans. 'Woods' are normally natural.

Forests can be planted by humans and woods generally aren't, but I do not think of this as a natural distinction, Until comparatively recent times, much of England was covered by natural forests, and there are still many natural tropical rain forests in the world.

 

[panglossa]

Forests can be planted by humans and woods generally aren't,

This was precisely the point I was making. Of course, I never suggested that forests were usually not naturally growing.