1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Esperanto
  4. >
  5. "Aro de arboj estas arbaro."

"Aro de arboj estas arbaro."

Translation:A group of trees is a forest.

June 12, 2015



Esperantistoj ŝatas taŭtologioj.


And old Irish maths teacher joke "What is t(h)ree t(h)rees?" "9?" "No. A small forest." :)


Are "amikaro and amikoj"the same ?


"mia amikaro" is something like "my circle of friends". The two words are effectively interchangeable, but you might choose "amikaro" if you wanted to stress group membership or exclusivity: "vi ne estas en mia amikaro".


That is what I thought.


Wouldn't it take an 'arego de arboj' to deserve the word 'forest'? I wouldn't dream of calling a mere group of trees a forest.


Actually, it's beyond subjective interpretation. Think of it as a set rather than several individuals. Don't think of the arboj, but rather as an abstract collection structure.

Ekzemple, let's say you want to group together members in a household. The household is the aro; the set. Once that is established, you can begin to include household members. Few members, many members, one member... it doesn't matter. What matters is that there is an abstract set called the "household", and within that set is members.

As another example, I'll use the Python language for readability. Imagine the following scenario:

aro = []



aro += alialisto

No matter how many members exist in the list aro, be it just "Alico", both "Alico" and "Benito", or even merging in a whole other list, aro is still an abstract collection which can contain members. It doesn't suddenly become a collection when it achieves an arbitrary member count. :) I hope that helps.

[deactivated user]

    No offence, I think the above is awesome. However...

    You know you are among nerds when you see a post discussing Esperanto with analogies to set notation and Python. You know you are a nerd when you read and like the whole thing.


    Your comment reminded me of Nerd Girl Problems, so I went to read a few and learned that they haven't updated in over a year.


    Thanks for this, Synteq! Very helpful.


    Ah, but in Python, one can have an "empty" aro -- which is its state immediately after executing the first line, "aro = []".

    Thus, a parcel that looks like a field could nevertheless be a forest in the sense that I designated it to be one, then went off to purchase seedlings, and will return to plant them -- and if you walk by in the interim, it would be the case, "You can't see the trees in the forest." (Apologies to Rocky and Bullwinkle.)


    Quick, pitch this use of 'aro' to Komputeko!


    Kial "de" estas uzata anstataŭ "da"? Aro estas kolekto, kiu enhavas elementojn, ĉu ne? Simile kiel la frazo "listo da vortoj" por listo, kiu enhavas vortojn, kial "arbaro" ne estas aro, kiu enhavas arbojn, do "aro da arboj"?


    Por uzi la prepozicion "da", necesas ke la antaŭa vorto enhavas ideon de kvanto. "Aro" estas tro nedefinita laŭ mi por uzi "da" kun ĝi, oni ne povas respondi al la demando "kiom da arboj estas tie ĉi?" per "aro".

    Vidu : http://bertilow.com/pmeg/gramatiko/rolmontriloj/rolvortetoj/da/detalaj_reguloj.html


    Dankon! Mi komprenas nun. Tial mi vidis "aro da elementoj", kiam la elementoj nombreblas en la aro. Do por nenombreblaj aroj, oni devus uzi la prepozicion "de" anstataŭe, se mi prave komprenas.


    Kuru arbaro Kuru!


    If I wanted to refer to a group of kids, would either infanaro or geknabaro be acceptable?


    Should grove also be an acceptable translation for arbaro?


    This reminds me of the Chinese characters for tree (木), woods (林), and forest (森).


    "Wood" is not accepted for some reason.


    It is accepted now.


    Aro de aroj estas araro. Seems not all words, we can make, do exist.


    Why would that not exist? It seems to me that a set of sets could be described as an araro.


    That would be the Esperanto version of a set-of-sets. That eventually leads to Russell's Paradox: roughly speaking, does the "set of all sets that do not contain themselves" contain itself?


    Sennoma said:" I can imagine people using words like "arbarego" and "arbareto" depending on how they want to paint this abstract idea of a group of trees." So, would a grove (small group) of trees be an arbareto? Or would that be a small tree?


    An «arbareto» would be a small grove of trees. An «arbetaro» would be a forest of shrubs. And I guess an «arbetareto» would be a grove of shrubs?


    How do you say woods as in: "The Hickaly Woods has a giant skeleton in it." That's a Zelda refrence, in case you didn't know. But the question is serious.


    If "arbaro" is forest, then what is an "orchard"? "Forests" and "orchards" differ not so much by size as by "intent": forests are natural, while orchards planted in an organized way for harvesting.


    Orchards is a place with fruit trees, so: fruktarbejo or fruktarbaro probably is a good option? :)


    I think a forest is not the same as a group of trees, but a whole ecosystem. A plantation of trees for timber production is not a forest


    Teorie, por tiu ĉi signifo ekzistas la termino "forsto" t.e. arbaro-plantejo, malsame al la angla. Kompreneble, se mi ne eraras :)


    From what I see in my neighborhood, the only difference between a forest and a tree farm is the sign hanging on one of the trees that says "Tree Farm."

    Another interesting fact, about 150 years ago, this region was 10% forested with many farms, but then people were tired of "growing rocks" so two thirds moved away; as recently as 20 years ago, it was 90% forested although lately people have been "planting house seeds" and making more open space.


    I'm sure such things exist on a spectrum -- monoculure of trees, "managed woodland", limited logging in an established forest...

    Years ago I used to say "save a wheat plant - recycle toast" as a nod to this idea that in some areas tree-pulp trees are grown on what is essentially a monoculture. I don't claim to have a lot of experience with that, but for sure, I've seen plenty of Christmas tree farms, and they certainly are not forests.

    P.S. I had a hard time understanding your other interesting fact because of all the terms in "scare quotes".


    If you will permit me an explanation, I websearched and found a few different definitions for scare quotes. I intended to use them in the following manner:

    APA – The APA recommends using scare quotes “To introduce a word or phrase used as an ironic comment, as slang, or as an invented or coined expression. Use quotation marks the first time the word or phrase is used; thereafter, do not use quotation marks.” Oct 31, 2019

    Unfortunately, I may have too tightly compressed my post and squeezed out its meaning.

    During a visit to the state history museum, a docent described how, when large tracts of fertile farmland were discovered elsewhere, many rural towns were quickly depopulated as many people abandoned the very rocky soil here, saying, "They were tired of growing rocks."

    Regarding "planting house seeds," that is an original neologism; however, I usually use it at the beginning of a longer observation that emerged from my visits with relatives who lived on farms and grew hay: the problem with planting house seeds is that nobody has yet invented a machine to cut, bale, and stack them at the end of the growing season.

    Hope this helps.


    Good point. Certainly the paper industry does a lot to build their case - including the term "managed woodland" which almost sounds like either a euphemism or an oxymoron.

    Or maybe they're "green deserts".


    Arbaro refers not to any group of trees, but is meant to evoke the idea of a complete forest and all the things that traditionally go with it.


    Do kial vortprovizo ne nomigxas "vortaro"?


    Because that already means dictionary.

    Learn Esperanto in just 5 minutes a day. For free.