Re: NATLANG: Colours
|From:||Mark P. Line <mark@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, April 28, 2004, 4:31|
Nik Taylor said:
> "Mark P. Line" wrote:
>> Nik Taylor
>> > Yet, in very many language, _red_ translates literally as
>> > _blood-color_.
>> Yep. And in very many languages, _orange_ translates literally as _color
>> of a large citrus fruit_. I don't think those are very good data points
>> for trying to figure out how color naming might have evolved.
> Well, my point was that blood = red may well be a common human
> perception. And, I don't get your point about "orange". We *did* get
> the color name from the fruit. Color-terms are often taken from things
> in nature that have that color, and _blood_ is probably one of the best
> common natural examples. Likewise, oranges are a good example of the
> color orange.
We were being offered an argument based on the fact that words for the
color "red" and for "blood" are related in many languages. (Actually, I'm
being kind. We were being offered an argument based on the *assumption*
that the word for the color "red" is *derived* from the word for "blood"
in many languages, even though the word for "blood" may have been derived
from the word for "red" or both may have been derived from a third term.)
We were not, however, being offered an argument based on the fact that
words for the color "orange" and for "orange" (the fruit) are related in
many languages, because then an explanation would be needed as to why this
fact is important for "red" but not important for "orange".
I find that neither of these facts is very enlightening with respect to
purported color naming universals.
This thread has gone way beyond any utility it might have had for me, so
I'm going to bow out at this point.