Re: OT: blue blood Re: Letf / Right, was Re: Count and mass nouns:Re:Red

Tristan McLeay wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Costentin Cornomorus wrote:
>
>
>
>>--- Tristan McLeay <zsau@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Philippe Caquant wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>There are several colours for blood, but they
>>>>
>>>>
>>>are all
>>>
>>>
>>>>red.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Even that dried stuff that looks more black
>>>than red? How about the blue
>>>stuff I can see under my skin? or are the veins
>>>blue instead of the blood?
>>>
>>>
>>Funny how that looks blue from the outside. It's
>>all really pink, white and yellow in there.
>>
>>See
>><http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/blueblud.html>
>>
>>
>
>Mm... It seems to me (the moreso after reading that) that saying that
>blood under (fair) skin isn't blue, even after reading that, is like
>saying the sky isn't blue. After all, if it *looks* blue, why doesn't that
>make it blue? Why shouldn't colors just be ways of discussing what
>something looks like? Maybe an unresolvable issue of semantics...
>
>t
>
They're saying that the actual blood isn't blue, just as blood looked at
through a blue filter isn't actually black.  If you cut open a vain, it
would still be red and pretty.

>--
>Tristan
>
>
>
>

Reply