=C2=A0 We already have a way of describing colors tha= t's more precise.=C2=A0 There is nothing wrong with a sentence like &qu= ot;lo tsani cu skari la'e li pacimu pi'e renoxa pi'e recimu&quo= t;=C2=A0 (actually, 1975 Loglan (and perhaps previous and subsequent versio= ns -- I don't know) had kolro defined as "X is a color with hue Y,= saturation W, and brilliance H"=C2=A0 Not sure when it morphed into t= he curent lojban skari's type of definition.

=C2=A0

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 --gejyspa

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 6:05 AM, jongausib <so.cool.ogi@gmail= .com> wrote:

coi
.arpis suggests in anothe= r thread that the definitions of colors could
be better:
{xunre} thin= gs like, "one of the three primary colors in the additive
model, the other two being {pelxu} and {crino}", "the color of an=
iconic rose", "the color of blood", "a color",=

I think it would be good to have exact definitions of the colors, f= or
unambiguity.
So something like:
{xunre} x1 is red [color adjective] i= n color system x2 [default RGB
#FF0000/ CMYK (0, 100, 100, 0)].

A= lmost every color adjective gismu could easily be defined this way:

crino =C2=A0 green (lime) =C2=A0 =C2=A0#00FF00 (100, 0, 100, 0)
pelx= u =C2=A0 yellow =C2=A0#FFFF00 (0, 0, 100, 0)
narju =C2=A0 orange =C2=A0#= FFA500 (0, 35,3, 100, 0)
xunre =C2=A0 red =C2=A0 =C2=A0 #FF0000 (0, 100,= 100, 0)
nukni =C2=A0 magenta #FF00FF (0, 100, 0, 0)
zirpu =C2=A0 purple/violet =C2=A0 ? not clear! =C2=A0 =C2=A0?
blanu =C2= =A0 blue =C2=A0 =C2=A0#0000FF (100, 100, 0, 0)
cicna =C2=A0 cyan =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 #00FFFF =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(100, 0, 0, 0)

blabi =C2= =A0 white =C2=A0 #FFFFFF (0, 0, 0, 0)
grusi =C2=A0 gray =C2=A0 =C2=A0#80= 8080 (0, 0, 0, 50)
xekri =C2=A0 black =C2=A0 #000000 (0, 0, 0, 100 =E2=80=A0)
bunre =C2=A0 = brown =C2=A0 (150, 75, 0) not clear! (0, 50, 100, 41)

Compund colors= are a bit more tricky.
If you say {blari'o} - you probably mean a b= luish-type of green (more
green than blue), and {ri'obla} probably means a greenish-type of blue<= br>(more blue than green). Since these words are lujvo, and not tanru,
w= e'll need exact definitions for them as well. None of them are right between blue and green, that would be =C2=A0cicna (cyan). So how should you=
interpret these words? I suggest that blari'o means exactly between=
cicna and crino, and that ri'obla means exactly between cicna and blanu.

So for consistency, ri'orcicna (more cyan than green) is = 25% of the
color range between cyan and green, and cicnyri'o (more g= reen than
cyan) means 75% on the same scale. 50 % on the same scale is {= ri'obla}
as mentioned above.

I think this color model could be useful. The co= lor adjective gismu
has the same hue value distance between each of them= , except that
zirpu is synonymous to xunbla according to this modell (an= d therefore
is superfluous as a gismu) and that there unfortunately is a gismu
missi= ng between crino and pelxu.

Brown is more of a vague, intuitive defi= nition in the range between
yellow and red.
And the current definitio= ns for pink and rose are false, since those
colors isn't just a mixture between red and white, but also some
mag= enta.

I think that most people will use the gismu colors and perhaps= some of
the "first-order"-lujvo colors, and designers and oth= er graphic
professionals would have usage for more complex lujvo-colors with
exact = definitions.
Or using tanru with more vague definitions, like sfe'er= o xunre
(falur=C3=B6d) or crino joi pelxu nukni (whatever that means?).<= br>
mu'o mi'e jongausib

--
You re= ceived this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "l= ojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For= more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?h= l=3Den.