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.
>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
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