The analogy "GROVE : TREE" suggests a relationship where a grove is a collection or grouping of trees. Therefore, the answer to this analogy could be "FOREST : TREES," as a forest is a larger grouping or collection of trees, similar to how a grove is a smaller grouping.
The analogy of "grove to tree" can be completed with "forest to grove." Just as a grove is a smaller grouping of trees, a forest encompasses a larger area that contains multiple groves. This analogy highlights the relationship between parts and wholes within a natural setting.
Oh, dude, it's like person is to crowd as tree is to... a forest! Because, you know, a person is part of a crowd, and a tree is part of a forest. It's all about fitting in and being surrounded by your peeps... or leaves, in the case of a tree.
Fruit trees bear fruit while forest trees can or cant they just have to be in a forest. So fruit trees is a much narrower thing then forest trees.
a group of trees is called a forest of trees
a forest is a compact of many trees where in different animals live. The forest need trees so the animals can live there. The forest needs that many trees.
oak trees , red wood trees , and forest wood trees
Tree is to forest as sheep is to flock.
Yes, the noun forest is a collective noun; a forest of trees. Other collective nouns for trees are a stand of trees, a copse of trees, or a grove of trees.
An analogy for deer could be that they are like the gentle whispers of the forest, graceful and elusive, embodying the spirit of nature's tranquility. Just as a soft breeze rustles through the trees, deer move quietly and harmoniously through their environment, reflecting the beauty and fragility of the wilderness.
An example of an analogy in Fahrenheit 451 is when the burning books are compared to burning trees in a forest fire. This comparison highlights the destructive nature of burning books and the impact it has on society's knowledge and wisdom.
You can't see the trees for the forest!