0
MariaRC Posted 10 years ago
Grammar

red woods

Greetings,

Here is the original sentence from a book:

He gazed at red woods visible in the south.

These red woods have not been mentioned before this sentence. Can I read this sentence as: He gazed at red woods visible in the south ...

... and in that case, wouldn't it be better to write:

He gazed at the red woods [that were] visible in the south.

Sincere thanks,
Maria
  

Top answer

MariaRC wouldn't it be better to write:He gazed at the red woods [that were] visible in the south. Not necessarily. , in the east, in the north, etc.

— CalifJim

  • MariaRC wouldn't it be better to write:He gazed at the red woods [that were] visible in the south.
  • Not necessarily.
  • , in the east, in the north, etc.
  • The original one doesn't imply that any other woods were visible anywhere.
  • CJ
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

8 Answers
0
MariaRCwouldn't it be better to write:He gazed at the red woods [that were] visible in the south.
Not necessarily. This one distinguishes between the red woods that were visible in the south and the red woods that were visible elsewhere, e.g., in the east, in the north, etc. The original one doesn't imply that any other woods were visible anywhere.

0
0
CalifJimNot necessarily. This one distinguishes between the red woods that were visible in the south and the red woods that were visible elsewhere, e.g., in the east, in the north, etc. The original one doesn't imply that any other woods were visible anywhere.CJ
Thank you for coming through, CJ. I assume that "the red woods" would mean that there were red wood
0
0
MariaRCI assume that "the red woods" would mean that there were red woods in the south and he gazed at all of them?
He gazed at all that were visible, of course. Woods may extend for miles beyond what the eye can see.
MariaRCdo you agree that "(the) red woods visible in the south" is the same thing as "(the) red woods [that were visibl
0
0
CalifJimHe gazed at all that were visible, of course. Woods may extend for miles beyond what the eye can see.
Of course. That is exactly what I meant but did not have the clarity to write!

Thank you very much, CJ! I understand all of this now.
0
0
MariaRCHe gazed at red woods visible in the south.
Do you mean redwoods? That is a type of tree (several magnificent species) that grows in California.
0
0
AlpheccaStarsDo you mean redwoods? That is a type of tree (several magnificent species) that grows in California.
No. The writer meant 'a red wood'. 'A red forest'. A forest whose colour was red.
0
0
MariaRC. 'A red forest'.
It must have been autumn then, or the writer was color blind.
0
0
It was summer and the writer's vision is not said to have been impaired, as far as I know. However, as the action took place in the evening, it could have been the glow of the setting sun. Or maybe just a literary embellishment. I am not sure, actually. The writer is very good, so I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt!
0

Related Questions