Re: CHAT: Orange

Christophe Grandsire wrote:
> >
> > First time I ran across the idea that there's seven colours in the
> > rainbow
> > was in a school book which claimed that, actually, there are only six
> > colours in it - indigo being a kind of blue.
> >
>
>Grr... I hate this kind of remarks. Saying that indigo is a kind of blue is
>like saying that orange is a kind of red or green is a kind of blue. The
>fact
>that the Japanese didn't have a separate word for green and blue (both
>being
>aoi) doesn't mean that green and blue are the same colour, nor that the
>Japanese can't make the difference (they can, as well as anybody else).
>Indigo
>is *not* a kind of blue. Blue stops on the spectrum where indigo begins.
>That's
>the definition of the colour and no other. What you perceive is something
>else,
>and you may not perceive the difference between blue and indigo, or just
>learned the word so late that you're used to call "blue" what in reality
>should
>be called "indigo". Yet indigo exists as a separate colour and it is unfair
>to
>put it down as "a kind of blue". It's not a kind of blue to me. To me it's
>simply the colour that goes between blue and purple (which are not
>connected to
>me), just like green goes between yellow and blue or orange between red and
>yellow.
We-ell, for me, indigo is most definitely a passive-vocab word. I suspect
that's normal here in Sweden. To me, it IS a kind of blue, just like how to
a Japanese, blue IS a kind of _aoi_.

Obviously, I can tell the difference between indigo and (other) blue. I do
think that stating as an objective fact that indigo is a kind of blue, like
said book did, is stupid. But none of these changes the fact that to in my
"native colour system" there's no colour between blue and violet (or "blå"
and "lila" to use the Swedish terms).

                                                       Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com