I think it may also have something to do with what sort of trees are growing: deciduous trees grow in woods, conifers/evergreens in forests. Beech woods, pine forests. So what is the context ?
In British English, this is a matter of size: a forest is bigger than a wood.
vb
- (intransitive) to exert effort in order to do, make, or perform something
- (intransitive) to be employed
- (transitive) to carry on operations, activity, etc, in (a place or area): that salesman works the southern region
- (transitive) to cause to labour or toil: he works his men hard
- to operate or cause to operate, esp properly or effectively: to work a lathe, that clock doesn't work
- (transitive) to till or cultivate (land)
SB70012 said:I read all comments. I got the difference between forest and jungle but I didn't understand some comments about the woods.
One native English in post #2 has said: "Woods are forests that have been worked by humans" = what does it mean by saying worked by humans?
Woods has no connotation of "worked by humans" (that is, used for logging and related activities) for me and I don't think it does for most other native speakers, either. I'd say that generally, the difference is that forests are larger than woods. However, as I discovered when I moved to Indiana from Southern California, there are significant regional differences in usage. In Indiana, while people recognize the word forest and even use it from time to time to designate large stretches of land covered by trees (e.g., the Hoosier National Forest), the word they almost invariably use is woods. In theory, even for a person from Indiana, a forest is large and woods are medium or small, but in practice, they use woods far more often than forest.
This is one of those Indiana quirks that I have never completely adjusted to.
There is no support for post #2 that made the claim (and unfortunately created the question) about "worked".
I'd agree on the "forests" are bigger (in area) than "woods". There's also definite overlap and when one is "in the woods" it isn't possible to tell whether one is in a forest or not (because you can't see the forest for the trees).
There is a rather depressing book by an American (Bill Bryson) entitled "A Walk in the Woods" about the Appalatians, I assume "the woods" there would, scientifically, be termed "montane forest".
I've always assumed "the woods" means somewhere wild with lots of trees and is less formal and definitive than "forest".
One native English in post #2 has said: "Woods are forests that have been worked by humans" = what does it mean by saying worked by humans?![]()
No. I am cannot see that #2 is correct. (You will note that the poster is no longer with us...)So "Worked by humans" refers to when people go for a walk yes?
"Woods are forests that have been worked by humans"