--- Christophe Grandsire
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> En réponse à Costentin Cornomorus :
> > > (my uncle Kai can't stop
> > > his gigglefits at the idea that there are
> > > "Whites" and "People of Colour"...
> >
> >I never have understand that one. I mean,
> since
> >when has white not been a colour?
> Actually, white has *never* been a colour ;)) .

Um. OK.

> It's a *value*
> (corresponding to the maximum of lightness)
> ;))) .

Ah. Ruddy physics [mumblemumble].

> But note that black is
> also a value (corresponding to the maximum of
> darkness) :))) , so the
> expression "People of Colour", especially
> applied to "black" people, is
> still a strange one :)) .

All pretty strange, if you ask me. And what's
funny (WARNING: American humour alert) is that
here it's "black" people that tend to perpetrate
this kind of strangeness. Might it not be easier
to just be a person?

If you want to describe people by some colour
attribute, do it: there's no "black" people or
"white" people (very few, anyway). I've seen
loads of chocolate, coffee, tan, leather,
paperbag, cream, chalk and cafe au lait people

This is one aspect of lexicon I've never explored
for any of my conlangs. I really don't know what
Dumnonians would have to say on the matter - and
Daine have to many other physical characteristics
to comment on that make mere skin colour

Comments? Anyone find this region of lexis
necessary in your languages? Anyone perplexed by
the notion?


la cieurgeourea provoer mal trasfu ast meiyoer ke 'l andrext ben trasfu.


Ill Bethisad --

Come visit The World! --