Den 2015-08-31 kl. 18:45, skrev
Paul Bartlett:
> On 2015-08-30 11:57 PM, Kjell
> Rehnström wrote:
>
>> Den 2015-08-30 kl. 19:44, skrev
>> Paul Bartlett:
>>> On 2015-08-29 8:36 PM, Leo
>>> Moser wrote:
>>>
>>>> English pulls out Pink for
>>>> light-red.
>>>>
>>>> Russian pulls out light-blue
>>>> as if separate..
>>>
>>> To be sure. One of my points
>>> was/is that different languages
>>> divide up
>>> the color spectrum in different
>>> ways and places. Again, adult
>>> learners
>>> of "the" conIAL will be
>>> accustomed to different
>>> divisions, and what
>>> seems "natural" to one may seem
>>> "strange" to another. However,
>>> what
>>> set of basic or elementary
>>> terms is adequate, especially
>>> if we allow
>>> compounding of terms?
>> I suspect the language that has
>> the most elaborate color terms
>> will have
>> influence on the IAL. Not that I
>> ever have had any problems withh
>> colors
>> in auxiliary languages that I
>> pretend to speak.
>
> English, of course, has a
> profusion of color terms. I
> cannot speak as knowledgeably
> about other languages. Searight's
> Sona allowed extensive
> compounding for colors (§22, p.
> 47), as it did for kinship terms
> (§14, p. 35), for example. Should
> a conIAL have a lot of elementary
> terms, or compounds? That is what
> I am wondering.
My guess is that the color system,
like kinship terms and a lot of
other categories in a language,
constructed or not, are less stable
than one can imagine. As an example
I would mention the new terms for
relations like aunts and uncles are
expending in modern Swedish to
indicate new families founded after
the original, where the partners
divorced. A rather bizarre term is
"plastic dad"(!) meaning the man in
Mom's new marriage.

Kjell R