Timeline for Can colour be considered as an aspatial and atemporal universal?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 2, 2015 at 8:49 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | Ok - like crimson, scarlet, vermillion describe red with some other quality. | |
| Aug 1, 2015 at 23:37 | comment | added | reinierpost | A more important thing is that proper color names (words that describe certain ranges of hues) don't mean the same to eveyone, not even speakers of the same language, not even family members. What is brown to me can be purple to my mother, or vice versa. Sometimes this is a matter of color vision, sometimes a matter of how naming things differently. | |
| Aug 1, 2015 at 23:31 | comment | added | reinierpost | The point is that (apparently) they did not have pure color names. They had words that described color together with some other quality. So their word for the blackness of charcoal did not purely describe its hue, but also some other aspect of what it looks like. I must say that I only heard this a few times, and e.g. this page appears to contradict it. | |
| Aug 1, 2015 at 23:26 | history | edited | reinierpost | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 10 characters in body
|
| Aug 1, 2015 at 11:44 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | That sounds bizarre; not that I'm claiming you're wrong, mind you; but how did Romans in the early Roman Empire describe trees, charcoal and their togas?! | |
| Jul 31, 2015 at 21:42 | history | answered | reinierpost | CC BY-SA 3.0 |