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

> > > Similarly, orange may well be red + yellow in scientific
> > > or artistic terms, but no natlang is going to see it that way.
> >
> > 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).
>
> [...]
> 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. The same goes for purple, which _is_ the fusion of
RED + BLUE, so for languages to be expected to _never_ see it that
way, that is, to be expected to never acknowledge the _objective_
nature of the purple or orange composite perceptions, I think there
should be a _very_ good reason, which is what I ask you to provide.

Cheers,
Javier

Replies