Dan Sulani sikyal:

>     In my conlang, rtemmu, colors are named for processes in the
> world which exhibit that color. This is done by putting the
> infix  | -yai- | after the first vowel in the word describing
> the colored process.
>     For example, take the word | sdihs | ( = the process of fire,
> burning, blazing ). Using the infix | -yai- |, one gets
> | sdihyais | = the fire color, which, in rtemmu,  is considered
> orange, not red. (Note: |ih| stands for the vowel /I/. )
> Other colors are derived from other words. For example:
> w'oduh  =  (the process of being) blood
> w'oyaiduh = (the process of being)  red

Instead of the horribly abstract "the process of being blood", mightn't we
use a word meaning "to bleed."

> kol = (the process of being) deep water
> koyail = (the process of being) blue
>              (the water is considered as being unpolluted
>               under a blue unpolluted sky! )

Peculiar.  Even in unpolluted places under blue skies, water is not
necessarily blue.  Beware of letting cultural associations seep across
unknowingly.  In Homer, the sea is often purplish (the color of wine, or
"porphuros" if I remember the word right.)

> and so on.

This reminds me of Thai, where there is a word /si:/ that means "color
of."  It can be used with almost anything to make a color name, e.g.:
/si:som/ = color of orange (fruit) = orange
/si:kha:w/ = color of rice = white
/si:gaNgeNyi:n/ = color of jeans = denimy blue

However, I think that using this to describe *all* colors is unnatural.
Even in Thai, the most basic colors (black, red, and a few others) are
derived from things that have no meaning other than their color.  I would
suggest putting a few unanalyzable colors in there, just to liven things
up a bit.

Jesse S. Bangs [log in to unmask]

"If you look at a thing nine hundred and ninety-nine times, you are
perfectly safe; if you look at it the thousandth time, you are in
frightful danger of seeing it for the first time."
--G.K. Chesterton