Return-Path: Message-Id: <9109241241.AA24426@relay1.UU.NET> Date: Tue Sep 24 09:19:25 1991 Reply-To: "61510::GILSON" Sender: Lojban list From: "61510::GILSON" Subject: Color terminology X-To: conlang X-Cc: lojban To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Tue Sep 24 09:19:25 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN dave@PRC.Unisys.COM writes: >In a language constructed in a modern scientific society, there would >seem to be absolutely no reason not to have standards for color names. >Instead of saying that "blanu" is "more or less like the English >'blue'", it could be precisely defined. >In the case of a spectral color, such as blanu, one could define it as >the pure color of such-and-such a wavelength. I don't know whether >there are ANSI standard color names (Chris Handley's comment suggests >there might be), but I would expect people to have more trouble >agreeing on English color names than Lojban color names, simply >because Lojban speakers are fewer in number and haven't "always" used >their color terms in their own idiosyncratic ways. And if there is a >standard for, say, "purple," it is not one or most English speakers >have helped define, and I might or might not agree with it.... One problem is that there are several different systems for giving color standards: CIE, Munsell, Hickethier, etc. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. >The major difference between this and natural languages such as >English is that when we say something is "blue" we mean it is an >approximation to our idiosyncratic notion of "blue", rather than as an >approximation to an agreed-upon standard. Probably this is why my >wife and I never agreed whether our first car was green or blue.... >So how about it, Lojbanisti (or whatever the term is)? Do you want >logical color names, or vague names semi-defined by your cultural >backgrounds? For Lojban, Dave's approach is probably right. For a conlang that tries to be more representative of what natural languages do, probably not. Chris Handley writes: >Bruce writes >> Now, my own usage of the term "purple" is probably closer to >> Dave's than to Chris's, but Chris's usage seems to be the one used >> by color theorists (as he states). I would probably refer to the >> "purples" of color theory as "magenta" -- but I think also that >> most people's "red" includes some magentas and that their "orange" >> could often include what color theorists call "red." >The neat thing about use of aids such as the CIE diagram is that it >gives a consistent context within which to talk about colours, and >to plot relationships between colours, hues, saturation, >complementarity, etc. Incidentally shows why 30-colour theories for >either the production or perception of colour are fatally flawed. 30-color theories? Or is the 0 a stray? >As to magenta, this has, or should have a precise meaning. Along >with cyan and yellow, it is one of the three complementary colours >to the ubiquitous red, green and blue of most modern colour >production. As such it can be found very easily on a colour diagram >- locate the points corresponding to your favourite versions of blue >and red, (specs for these are available), join them to white, bisect >the angle between them and project that line to the periphery. That >point will be magenta in your system. The terms "red," "green,", "blue," "cyan," "magenta," and "yellow" have two meanings in color theory. Chris is talking about the points (Cyan = Hickethier 900, magenta = Hickethier 090, yellow = Hickethier 009) that define additive and subtractive primaries. But in some treatments, the color wheel is divided into six _regions_, based on which of the six are nearest; i. e., "magenta" means anything closer to subtractive-primary magenta than to additive-primary red or additive-primary blue, or in Hickethier notation anything of the form xyz with y>(x + z). (As you can see, I tend to like the Hickethier notation, which makes it very easy to describe colors in terms of primaries. The CIE notation is much harder in my thoughts to visualize.) Bruce