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

Javier BF wrote:

>>>>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.
>
>
>
Perhaps the most likely place for this to occur is where 'Red' and
'Blue' have very broad-ranging  definitions, so most of what we would
call purple is occpied by those two colours.  But the narrow area where
there is ambiguity is simply called 'Redblue', as that is what it most
closely resembles(just as we may call Turquoise blue-green.  Which, by
the way, is also equivalent).