Print

Print


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