The phrase “if trees had horses would be single” has aroused an interest to many yet most dont know the meaning and seek to know.

Its meaning has been sought and many have tried to explain, but no one really seems to know its its ing.

Its clear that the sentence is grammatically incorrect or some word was cut out.

The following are some of the explanations,

Somebody argued that it should read “If trees had horses, they would be the most single powerful species one the planet.” The meaning being that if trees owned horses they would have been the most influential  creatures here on Earth.

Another had his version that if the tree tried to acquire horses then the horses would be single. Because normally horses are tied on trees. So if the trees really owned horses then horses would be tied on them all through. If then horses are tied always on trees then they would have no chances of meeting other horses to befriend and mate and hence each horse would remain single.

Another explained that it is a reflection on the misery of a tree ever owning a horse, but not being able to mount and ride because it is stationary