It seems to me that woods is more specific, whereas forest is more general...
2007-05-11 11:54:31 · 6 answers · asked by ey 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Languages
Forest is very large, whereas,woods is a small piece of land, thats what i always thought.``
2007-05-11 12:03:38 · answer #1 · answered by Moose 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Forests cover a larger area than woods. there is no specific size where they change over. It may just be historic. Some old forests are now quite small and should really be called woods.
2007-05-11 12:06:06 · answer #2 · answered by Easy Peasy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it depends on where you are. Some people in the south may use a different word then some one in the north for the same thing. Same goes from east to west. Kinda like a varitaion on an accent I guess.
To me "woods" means a small area of trees and plants. Where a "forest" would be very large in area and much more overun by underbrush.
2007-05-11 12:04:37 · answer #3 · answered by bcbodie1978 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
actually woods is for more rural areas and in the city and the woods have usually more thinner trees and not as leafy as forest. People use forest for describing large untamed area of trees and with many of them flourishing now and always hot there.
2007-05-11 12:02:56 · answer #4 · answered by t_nguyen62791 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Woods means just a bunch of trees, and forest would include all the other flora and fauna
2007-05-11 12:02:47 · answer #5 · answered by mscrankyangel 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All I know is that in Missouri it's the woods. A forest to me is much denser, much bigger trees, less scrubby undergrowth, less scraggly stuff. May just depend on where you live.
2007-05-11 12:05:58 · answer #6 · answered by towanda 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋