Michael Poxon wrote: > Maybe one test for basicness could be whether or not the term can > intuitively include more specific colour terms which are > not themselves seen by the speakers as basic terms. So English "red" > includes scarlet, vermilion, etc., whilst these terms cannot be similarly > manipulated any farther. So in English, red is basic while scarlet etc., is > not. Beige, taupe and their ilk are also non-basic terms by the same token, > being > submembers of brown or yellow. By this standard I guess "silki" (turquoise) in Lindiga would be a candidate for being a basic color, since "ngagki" (teal) and "sajÚni" (cyan) could be considered as varieties of "silki". Actually in the dictionary I have "ngagki" listed as a variety of "lampi" (blue), but I think it might make more sense to make it a variety of "silki". On the other hand, orange is listed as being a variety of red, and there aren't any colors listed as being varieties of orange, so orange isn't a basic Lindiga color! Could there be a language in which "purple" is considered a kind of "blue" (along with "azure" and others), while "violet" is a specific kind of "purple"? The same with turquiose. It doesn't matter > whether you feel it's a greenish-blue or bluish-green: the fact is, it's a > submember of a term farther up the hierarchy. > The comments on "gold" are interesting. Surely no natlang perceives colour > differences as wavelengths. I'd say that colours are seen > as qualities rather than as quantities. I don't see any reason why gold and > silver shouldn't be basic terms, though I know of no natlang that has them. > Similarly, orange may well be red + yellow in scientific or artistic terms, > but no natlang is going to see it that way. > Mike Gold and silver in Lindiga are just varieties of yellow and gray.