Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ    Attic   

Re: Semantic typology?

From:Alex Fink <000024@...>
Date:Monday, August 11, 2008, 17:11
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:05:18 -0400, John Vertical <johnvertical@...>

>>If there are such hypothesized universals I want to violate some of them >>in my next engelang and see what happens. >> >>-- >>Jim Henry > >Basic color terminology of "polka", "tweed", "chrome", "iridescent" >and "matte"? :)
I've read -- though it escapes me where at the moment -- that on the grounds of representation in the lexicon and textual usage, the system of colour terms on the whole were really secondary to the system of terms describing luster in Old English. Likewise many languages whose scheme of true colour terms is poor are often supposed to be well stocked in terms combining colour/lustre/texture/whatever other aspects of visual appearance: there might not be a "yellow" but there might be a "yellow, dry, and brittle, like dead grass". But, then, if Berlin and Kaye found this dadalang in the wild they'd ignore all these terms, I think, and zoom in on whatever proper basic colour terms it did have under their strict criteria, very likely none. One of the limitations of the scope of their conclusions, I suppose -- just because there are words that are basic color terms doesn't mean that they're words anyone uses. Alex