Re: Quest for colours: what's basic then?

Javier BF went:
>> > Why are you so sure about that? I think it's like stating
>> > that no natlang is going to see purple as red + blue (German
>> > does: blaurot).
>>
And I was all:
>> I don't think it's a very good data point for a discussion of whether or
>> not a language *without* the input from something like the Farbenlehre
>> or
>> nationalist language policy would ever see purple as red + blue.
>>
>> Also, "redyellow" does not usually mean "orange" in English, although it
>> wouldn't be a stretch for poetic license to use it that way. It usually
>> means "red and yellow mixed", as in a sunrise.
>
> Well, it was you who were categorical in your claim that no natlang
> is going to see orange as red + yellow, and I asked you _why_ you
> are so sure about that, because orange _is_ objectively the colour
> perception that results from the fusion of the basic visual percepts
> RED + YELLOW.

Actually, that was somebody else, not me. I'm the guy who's merely trying
to find out if any science has been injected into the subject of color
naming "universals" since the last time I checked it out. Doesn't look
like it, does it.


Also, I don't understand how YELLOW is supposed to be a more basic visual
percept for humans than ORANGE. Our eyes pick up RED, GREEN and BLUE and
our brains figure out all the rest of the colors from that.


-- Mark