Bears and why they mostly are called otherwise

[Dr. John E. McLaughlin]

[I (John McLaughlin) wrote]

>> There are many, many languages in the world that have no basic word for
>> 'brown', and, as Berlin and Kay have demonstrated, 'brown' is a late term to
>> develop in color vocabulary.

[Joat Simeon wrote]

> -- ah, my fault.  I should have been clearer.  I think it's entirely academic
> and pointless to distinguish between "primary" and other color terms.

Berlin and Kay have a very precise meaning for "basic" (not "primary", which
is a term of optics representing Red, Yellow, and Blue only, as opposed to
"secondary", which is a term for Orange, Green, and Purple).  A "basic"
color term is one that is not derived from another word and not borrowed
from another language.  As far as your charge of "academic", that's what
linguistics is really all about--looking at the details and giving accurate
representations of what we find.  While controversial in some aspects,
Berlin and Kay's work has proven more useful than not in my experience.
Since you weren't familiar with their term "basic", I suggest you read their
work first:

B. Berlin and P. Kay.  1969.  Basic Color Terms.  Berkeley:  University of
California Press.

> We say "orange"; the word is derived from the fruit, not vice-versa; is
> "orange" then a "primary" color term, or not?

"Orange" is not a basic color term in Modern English, since it is still
recognized as being the color of the fruit.  Once that association has been
lost, that is, once the fruit is called "bonzo", then we can consider
"orange" a basic color term.  "Brown" is a good example (assuming for the
sake of argument, of course, that "brown" is derived from "bruin" [or some
such history]).  Since "bruin" is on the way out in Modern English, "brown"
is moving into the realm of a basic color term.  "Orange" fits into that
large class of non-basic color terms like "pink", "violet", "indigo",
"russet", "brick red", "lemon yellow", "sky blue", and "rose".  The basic
color terms in Modern English (according to my own reckoning) are "white",
"black", "red", "yellow", "green", "blue", "purple", and "gray".  "Brown" is
moving into this class, but since we still have "bruin" in our language,
it's not quite there yet.  "Pink" is closer to being a basic term than
"orange", since only gardeners recognize "pink" as a name for a member of
the genus Dianthus.

> Who cares?  Likewise, PIE seems to have had a term for "bay-colored horse".
> If its speakers then referred to other things of similar color as "bay", so
> what?

Since there is no evidence that "bay" was ever used as anything other than a
part of the word for "bay horse" or, as horsemen say, "bay", (not
"bay-colored horse", no one says that), it cannot be considered a color term
at all, but only a specific marker for horse type.  Neither "bay" nor any
other "horse color", like "pinto", "dun" and "paint", can be applied to any
other creature or inanimate object.

Academic?  Of course it is.  Does it have any relevance when you buy a plum
shirt with tan pants and russet socks?  No.  Does it have relevance for our
understanding of language change and evolution.  Absolutely.  Here's another
good source for what we're talking about.

M.J.P. Nichols.  1980.  "Renewal in Numic Color Systems," American Indian
and Indoeuropean Studies.  Mouton.  Pp. 159-167.

John E. McLaughlin, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
mclasutt at brigham.net

Program Director
Utah State University On-Line Linguistics
http://english.usu.edu/lingnet

English Department
3200 Old Main Hill
Utah State University
Logan, UT  84322-3200

(435) 797-2738 (voice)
(435) 797-3797 (fax)