Re: Mauve and a related conlang question

[snipped stuff on Mauve and Moten colour terms (interesting!)]
When I was at uni, I did a major critique of Berlin and Kay's book. I still
have it somewhere; if (when) I find it, I'll stick it up on the net. The
core problem is that not all colour terms necessarily relate to the physical
wavelength of colour. Some terms are used specifically for certain classes
of phenomena (for instance, a word for "red" (which may have derived from
the word for "blood") may be applicable only to liquids or runny things -
and the difference is purely that; nothing to do with the wavelength of the
light at all. So although "glas" may be a word in Welsh for "green" it is
only used for certain types of objects - as well as being used to describe a
green with some blue in it.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim May" <butsuri@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: Mauve and a related conlang question


> Christophe Grandsire writes:
>  > En réponse à Clint Jackson Baker <litrex1@...>:
>
> !So what does explain the variations? That's still a matter of
> !dispute. The majority view, I would venture to say, is that the
> !designation of colors in different cultures is totally arbitrary. For
> !instance, H.A. Gleason notes, "There is a continuous gradation of
> !color from one end of the spectrum to the other. Yet an American
> !describing it will list the hues as red, orange, yellow, green, blue,
> !purple, or something of the kind. There is nothing inherent either in
> !the spectrum or the human perception of it which would compel its
> !division in this way" (An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics,
> !1961). Similarly, Verne Ray says "there is no such thing as a natural
> !division of the spectrum. Each culture has taken the spectral
> !continuum and has divided it up on a basis which is quite arbitrary"
> !("Techniques and Problems in the Study of Human Color Perception,"
> !Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 1952).
> !
> !More recent research, however, suggests that color terminology may not
> !be so arbitrary after all. Brent Berlin and Paul Kay (Basic Color
> !Terms: Their Universality and Evolution, 1969), to whom Cecil is
> !indebted for much of the preceding discussion, suggest that there is a
> !remarkable degree of uniformity in the way different cultures assign
> !color names. In a study of 98 languages from a variety of linguistic
> !families, they found the following "rules" seem to apply:
> !
> !1. All languages contain terms for white and black.
> !
> !2. If a language contains three terms, then it contains a term for
> !   red.
> !
> !3. If a language contains four terms, then it contains a term for
> !   either green or yellow (but not both).
> !
> !4. If a language contains five terms, then it contains terms for both
> !   green and yellow.
> !
> !5. If a language contains six terms, then it contains a term for blue.
> !
> !6. If a language contains seven terms, then it contains a term for
> !   brown.
> !
> !7. If a language contains eight or more terms, then it contains a term
> !   for purple, pink, orange, grey, or some combination of these.
> !
> !Berlin and Kay also found that the number of basic color terms tends
> !to increase with the complexity of the civilization. They speculated
> !that this explains the relative poverty of color terminology among the
> !ancients--e.g., the Greeks had terms only for black, white, yellow,
> !and red because theirs was a relatively uncomplicated culture, at
> !least from a technological standpoint. But Berlin and Kay admit they
> !don't know why the "rules" should operate as they do. For more detail,
> !check out their book.
>
> I seem to remember seeing somewhere that the fundamental colour groups
> were always centered on the same wavelengths, but I could be imagining
> it.  It may have been in Pinker's _How the Mind Works_, but I couldn't
> say for sure that it even discusses the matter.
>
> * One variety is the marsh mallow, although I'm not certain of the
>   connection between the flower and the confection.

Reply