Thanks! This sentence is now "Él vive solo en el bosque" so if we had "Él vive sólo en el bosque," we get: "He only lives in the woods", right? Also, where should one place "sólo" to get: "Only he lives in the woods"? "Sólo él vive en el bosque" or "Él sólo vive en el bosque"? How do we go about saying: "Only he lives alone in the woods"?
Surely bosque is singular, with bosques as its plural form, just as in English wood is singular (e.g. Macbeth 'Till Birnam Wood do come to Dunsinane') with woods as the plural form, so I'd expect bosque to be translated as wood not woods. Maybe Americans use the plural form, woods, while standard English would uses the singular, wood,. And in the other direction, shouldn't the translation of 'He lives alone in the woods' be 'Él vive solo en los bosques'?
No, "bosque" is equivalent to Forest, woods, wood, body of trees. Collective noun in both Spanish and English.
English variants issue.
http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/forest-wood-and-woods.html gives an example of where AmE forest and BrE wood are equal, and goes on to say that "BrE wood here is woods in AmE".
So, probably, British Duolingo users (and other BrE users) are using "wood" which is entirely correct for them, and being told it's wrong. Duolingo generally accepts worldwide variants, and I hope eventually they will accept this one.
rumnraisin, thanks for clarifying with that comment. I live in Australia where British English is used. However, I haven't heard the term wood used in terms of the forest. Hence my comment--I wasn't aware that wood is used in BrE for forest. We also have the word "bush" and "bushwalking" here, which in my understanding means the peculiar kind of forest unique to Australia, where eucalyptus trees are predominant.
While I agree that «bosque» can be translated as "forest" or "woods", I disagree that the two are completely synonymous. They are close, but generally it's a matter of scale. Forest is reserved for a large area of trees and vegetation, such as one that is several miles in all directions. However, woods can refer to both something much smaller or a forest.
For example, I would refer to the acre of trees behind my house as the woods, but it certainly would not be considered a forest. On the flip side, if someone is lost in a National Forest such as Nantahala, you could say they are lost in the woods.
woods and forest are NOT synonymous in English. https://sciencing.com/differences-woods-forests-jungles-8377449.html
I wrote " He lives only in the woods" it was correct. Later on the question popped up again but this time I wrote " He lives alone in the forest ", correct again. So how do I know when it is " He lives only in ... bla,bla" and "He lives alone in... ", the word "solo" has two meanings and they are both considered correct. Please, someone explain :).
Up until very recently, solo, when used as an adjective, did not have an accent while, sólo, when used as an adverb, required one. Unfortunately, the rule was changed now such that the accent is only used to avoid ambiguity which means you often have to rely on context now.
At any rate, in addition to using the accent or not to avoid the ambiguity, you can simply reverse the word order such that solo/sólo is at the beginning of the sentence where it doesn't function as an adjective and thus it must be the adverbial form which means "only".
- He lives alone in the forest = (Él vive
soloen el bosque)
- He only lives in the forest = (
Sólovive en el bosque)