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

Quoting Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>:

> Hi!
>
> Levi Tooker <lrtooker@...> writes:
> > > German 'Türkis' is a mineral but still represents a colour not
> > > describable by other colour terms + modification.  This must be a
> > > criterion, too.
> >
> > If german 'Türkis' is anything like English 'turquoise',
>
> I suppose so.
>
> > it ought to be eliminated by criterion (d) as I'm sure many speakers
> > do not know or are unsure what 'turquoise' means and it certainly
> > doesn't occur early in lists of colors. And if criterion (d) doesn't
> > do it, the fact that it's a (relatively) recent French loan as well
> > as the name of an object ought to.
>
> No, I don't think so.  It is neither doubtful as it does appear early
> on the list speakers will give you, nor is it used inconsistently.
> When I reviewed the Russian list, 'türkis' was clearly missing without
> thinking at all.  It is not blue and not green.  I think 'brown' and
> 'grey' would have taken longer to come up with for me.
>
> Maybe some other Germans can comment on this, since, of course, it
> does not help that one German says so. :-)  A second speaker, my girl
> friend, also listed it before she had to start thinking.  Then there
> was a pause and she listed 'brown', too.  And after another pause, we
> proposed 'kaki' and gave a reason for it, so that was the first one
> that seemed doubtful.
I'm, of course, no Real German (tm), but I must confess to surprise that anyone
would consider _türkis_ a "basic" colour. Partly because I'd never dream of
considering it so myself, partly because I'm not hearing it with anything
remotely like the frequency I hear, say, _rot_ or _grün_ or even _lila_.

                                                  Andreas