[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
color terminology
One of the most difficult problems that I think face the constructor of
a vocabulary list for a conlang is color terminology. Even closely related
languages divide the color spectrum differently. We might notice that
English and French have two color names that look similar, namely brown/brun
and maroon/marron, and they are related names ("maroon" is actually an English
borrowing of French "marron," and French "brun" is a borrowing from a Germanic
source that is cognate to the English "brown"). Yet English "brown" really
covers the territory of both of these two French words, and English "maroon"
represents a distinctly redder color than French "marron."
Another example is that Russian distinguishes "galuboi" (roughly, sky blue) ftom
"siniy" (roughly, dark blue); English has one word "blue" that covers both, but
we make a perfectly analogous distinction between "pink" and "red."
Even in one language there is variation. I noted an exchange on the lojban list
as follows:
>From: dave@PRC.Unisys.COM
>Remember ROY G. BIV? Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo,
>Violet. When is the last time you have ever heard anyone use the word
>"indigo" (or used it yourself)?
>As a fan of the blue end of the spectrum, I decided a year or so back
>that "indigo" was getting short shrift, and decided to restore it to
>my language. (I have also joked about starting a "Society for the
>Restoration of the Color Indigo.")
>"Indigo," as everyone ought to know, refers to the "bluish" purples,
>as opposed to the "reddish" purples, which probably should be called
>"violet". I started trying to make this distinction awhile ago, and
>found it very difficult at first. (Of course, the "real world"
>persists in giving us colors with little regard for our labels.)
>Lately I find it is much easier to make the distinction, to the point
>that I find it almost silly to call both colors "purple." Also, I am
>finding that a lot of things I would have formerly called "blue" are
>really "blue-indigo" ("indigo-blue"?).
>In other words, by deliberately introducing a color word into my
>vocabulary, and attempting to use it, I find that I have gradually
>learned to make the distinction between it and other colors more
>quickly and easily. Probably this is not a physiological change. But
>while I could certainly "distinguish" indigo and violet before, I
>didn't "see them as different" in the way that I do now. (I guess
>this is subjective evidence for Sapir-Whorf....)
>I just observed in myself that, since I have been trying to use the
>word "indigo," but not concentrating on other words, my subjective
>feeling for "purple" has become largely identical to "violet." I'll
>have to correct that, because I think "purple" ought to be a general
>term including both indigo and violet. Right?
>From: "Chris Handley" <CHandley@gandalf.otago.ac.nz>
>Dave writes that he has restored indigo to his vocabulary and
>thereby increased his perceptions of the blue end of the spectrum.
>However, he then gets a trifle confused between violet and purple.
>If one looks at the CIE diagram (any half way decent reference work
>on Colour Theory, Image Processing or Computer Graphics should
>contain one), then the spectral colours (including violet) lie
>around the periphery, whereas the purples lie on the straight line
>joining the blue and red ends of the curve. They are niot spectral
>colours, but because we cannot see further than red and violet, we
>pretend there is nothing beyond them, so purples are called 'pseudo-
>spectral' colours, just to close the diagram off.
Now, my own usage of the term "purple" is probably closer to Dave's than
to Chris's, but Chris's usage seems to be the one used by color theorists
(as he states). I would probably refer to the "purples" of color theory as
"magenta" -- but I think also that most people's "red" includes some magentas
and that their "orange" could often include what color theorists call "red."
Any comments?
Bruce