5 ms·

>English is close but we don't have separate words for blue and light blue. Azure. Celeste. Cerulean. Cyan. Teal. Turqouise. aqua. Aquamarine. Lapis.

quicklyfrozen 10y ago
None of those are light blue :-)
- xrange 10y ago
  Any of these light blue? http://www.sherwin-williams.com/homeowners/color/find-and-explore-colors/paint-colors-by-family/family/blue/ http://www.sherwin-williams.com/homeowners/color/find-and-ex...
  - jedberg 10y ago
    Yes, but see my other comment about why they don't count (they aren't basic color terms).
- int_19h 10y ago
  Azure would be a subset of light blue in Russian.
jedberg 10y ago
None of those are the same as the russian color, but more importantly, those aren't considered basic color terms[0] Basic color terms need to be: - monolexemic ("green", but not "light green" or "forest green"), - high-frequency, and - agreed upon by speakers of that language.[7] All of those words you listed aren't high frequency. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_term#Basic_color_terms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_term#Basic_color_terms
- Teever 10y ago
  That definition seems arbitrary and debatable. For instance, what is high frequency? And what if say blind speakers of the language disagree?
  - jedberg 10y ago
    > For instance, what is high frequency? The 300 most frequent words in a representative corpus of text. > And what if say blind speakers of the language disagree? Blind speakers represent a small portion of all speakers, so even if every one of them disagrees, the majority of speakers will still agree.
    - CWuestefeld 10y ago
      The 300 most frequent words in a representative corpus of text. That doesn't seem to be a very good definition. As we subdivide colors into greater specificity, it'll naturally occur that each subdivision is referenced fewer times. So this definition intrinsically precludes a discovery of finer distinctions. IMHO, the whole idea that language shapes thought and perception (see TFA reference to Whorf) is overblown. I've seen this refuted where one person made the claim that while Nepalese(?) has a term for "mountain peak", English has no such word. The reply was: "of course it has a term for this: 'mountain peak'". As expert language users, we have no trouble synthesizing new concepts by using our language, which after all is far more than just a list of words, to frame our thoughts. I once was sitting near an argument about whether an object was blue or purple, and they decided to drag me into the argument. Not wanting to take sides, I said "how about periwinkle?", and they both seemed satisfied with that answer.
      - jedberg 10y ago
        > it'll naturally occur that each subdivision is referenced fewer times. That's true but their relative frequency will not change. Ie. if your only words are warm and cold you may see each of those 6% of the time, but if your have red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and purple then you will see each one 2% of the time. But in both cases all the other color related words in the language would be significantly less than 2%.
xhedley 10y ago
Mandatory XKCD link here https://blog.xkcd.com/2010/05/03/color-survey-results/ https://blog.xkcd.com/2010/05/03/color-survey-results/ This isn't just a comic - Randall Munroe ran a color naming survey on internet users. Native language was not collected. I assume native English speakers were over-represented but not universal. Interestingly there was a slight gender difference in naming among respondents (see the second table). Is that perceptual or a cultural gender-specific difference in how often men or women talk about color?
- jedberg 10y ago
  > Is that perceptual or a cultural gender-specific difference It's perceptual. Women have a higher cone to rod ratio, making them see colors easier while men see movement better. Also women are more likely to be tetracromats (four different cones instead of three). There are some unproven evolutionary reasons that this may be the case -- men needed better movement detection to hunt while women needed better color vision to detect bad food when gathering.
  - pluma 10y ago
    Also colour blindness is sexist (1 in 12 men vs 1 in 200 women has colour vision deficiency). There are some anecdotes that colourblind sharpshooters find it easier to see through camouflage as they're more sensitive to shapes (i.e. because for them a lot of things are "naturally camouflaged" they have more experience detecting shapes) but I'm not sure how factual they are. I'd say the 1 in 12 vs 1 in 200 difference alone might account for a significant difference when looking at a uniform sample of both sexes.

quicklyfrozen 10y ago

None of those are light blue :-)

xrange 10y ago
Any of these light blue? http://www.sherwin-williams.com/homeowners/color/find-and-explore-colors/paint-colors-by-family/family/blue/ http://www.sherwin-williams.com/homeowners/color/find-and-ex...
- jedberg 10y ago
  Yes, but see my other comment about why they don't count (they aren't basic color terms).
int_19h 10y ago
Azure would be a subset of light blue in Russian.

jedberg 10y ago

None of those are the same as the russian color, but more importantly, those aren't considered basic color terms[0] Basic color terms need to be: - monolexemic ("green", but not "light green" or "forest green"), - high-frequency, and - agreed upon by speakers of that language.[7] All of those words you listed aren't high frequency. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_term#Basic_color_terms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_term#Basic_color_terms

Teever 10y ago
That definition seems arbitrary and debatable. For instance, what is high frequency? And what if say blind speakers of the language disagree?
- jedberg 10y ago
  > For instance, what is high frequency? The 300 most frequent words in a representative corpus of text. > And what if say blind speakers of the language disagree? Blind speakers represent a small portion of all speakers, so even if every one of them disagrees, the majority of speakers will still agree.
  - CWuestefeld 10y ago
    The 300 most frequent words in a representative corpus of text. That doesn't seem to be a very good definition. As we subdivide colors into greater specificity, it'll naturally occur that each subdivision is referenced fewer times. So this definition intrinsically precludes a discovery of finer distinctions. IMHO, the whole idea that language shapes thought and perception (see TFA reference to Whorf) is overblown. I've seen this refuted where one person made the claim that while Nepalese(?) has a term for "mountain peak", English has no such word. The reply was: "of course it has a term for this: 'mountain peak'". As expert language users, we have no trouble synthesizing new concepts by using our language, which after all is far more than just a list of words, to frame our thoughts. I once was sitting near an argument about whether an object was blue or purple, and they decided to drag me into the argument. Not wanting to take sides, I said "how about periwinkle?", and they both seemed satisfied with that answer.
    - jedberg 10y ago
      > it'll naturally occur that each subdivision is referenced fewer times. That's true but their relative frequency will not change. Ie. if your only words are warm and cold you may see each of those 6% of the time, but if your have red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and purple then you will see each one 2% of the time. But in both cases all the other color related words in the language would be significantly less than 2%.

xhedley 10y ago

Mandatory XKCD link here https://blog.xkcd.com/2010/05/03/color-survey-results/ https://blog.xkcd.com/2010/05/03/color-survey-results/ This isn't just a comic - Randall Munroe ran a color naming survey on internet users. Native language was not collected. I assume native English speakers were over-represented but not universal. Interestingly there was a slight gender difference in naming among respondents (see the second table). Is that perceptual or a cultural gender-specific difference in how often men or women talk about color?

jedberg 10y ago
> Is that perceptual or a cultural gender-specific difference It's perceptual. Women have a higher cone to rod ratio, making them see colors easier while men see movement better. Also women are more likely to be tetracromats (four different cones instead of three). There are some unproven evolutionary reasons that this may be the case -- men needed better movement detection to hunt while women needed better color vision to detect bad food when gathering.
- pluma 10y ago
  Also colour blindness is sexist (1 in 12 men vs 1 in 200 women has colour vision deficiency). There are some anecdotes that colourblind sharpshooters find it easier to see through camouflage as they're more sensitive to shapes (i.e. because for them a lot of things are "naturally camouflaged" they have more experience detecting shapes) but I'm not sure how factual they are. I'd say the 1 in 12 vs 1 in 200 difference alone might account for a significant difference when looking at a uniform sample of both sexes.