Bears and why they mostly are called otherwise

[Ross Clark]

>>> "Dr. John E. McLaughlin" <mclasutt at brigham.net> 03/17 6:34 AM >>>

[I (John McLaughlin) wrote]

>As with most language descriptions, we cannot rely on idiolects (unless, of
>course, we're dealing with the "last speaker"), but must average things out.
>On a scale from most "colorified" to least, I would say that "pink" is the
>farthest along ("pink" as a member of the genus Dianthus is a much older usage
>than "pink" as a color), "brown" comes next (the "Bruins" of UCLA keep that
>word alive), and "orange" is the least "colorified".  Ultimately, since we're
>dealing with a diachronic process anyway, synchronic judgments of what we
>learn first as a child, or what our level of familiarity with the non-color
>word is, are irrelevant to the issue of what are the basic color terms of
>Modern English.  If the source word is still extant in the language, then the
>color term isn't basic yet.

But what is this "diachronic process" if not one of progression from
non-basic to "basic" (better I think would be "abstract") colour term? And how
else are we to decide when it has happened except by considering how actual
speakers understand these words? For me, "bruin" is a name for a bear, or an
alternative word for bear (beloved of journalists). It has *nothing to do*
with the word or the colour "brown". I am sure there are many English speakers
who don't even know the word "bruin". For me and for them "brown" is,
therefore, basic. I can't see how Berlin & Kay's criteria make any sense
except, ultimately, in those terms. And that is what disturbs me about their
cross-linguistic sample, given that their sources of data are so limited in
many cases. If English were a language spoken by a few thousand people on a
Pacific island, known to B & K only through a dictionary, they would have
looked at "pink" and "orange" (at least), and disqualified them because of the
flower and the fruit. And I think they would have been wrong.

Ross Clark