From pycyn@aol.com Fri Apr 20 10:22:20 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 20 Apr 2001 17:22:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 77388 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2001 17:22:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Apr 2001 17:22:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r15.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.69) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Apr 2001 17:22:19 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id r.7d.140edbf2 (9725) for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 13:21:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7d.140edbf2.2811ca2f@aol.com> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 13:21:51 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:not only To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_7d.140edbf2.2811ca2f_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_7d.140edbf2.2811ca2f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/19/2001 5:54:44 PM Central Daylight Time, lojbab@lojban.org writes: > . One reason [for adopting the simple predicate form for colors, rather > than the comparative] was a realization from prototype theory that word > meanings > (especially of colors) simply are NOT comparative to a typical in nature, > but rather reflect closeness to an archtypical or prototypical concept of > blue. Thus "blue" is "less non-blue than any non-blue object, or something > to that effect, though even this formulation may break down at the borders > between colors. > That is, a psychological theory about color recognition won out over a linguistic theory about how color terms function in language. That sounds familiar. In any case we got rid of the Angstrom unit crew and the fights between the red-blue-whatevers and the cyan-magenta-whatevers -- and the color spindleists. I don't remember that but I do know what JCB could do with odd cases, so I can imagine that as a powerful motive. --part1_7d.140edbf2.2811ca2f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/19/2001 5:54:44 PM Central Daylight Time,
lojbab@lojban.org writes:



.  One reason [for adopting the simple predicate form for colors, rather
than the comparative] was a realization from prototype theory that word
meanings
(especially of colors) simply are NOT comparative to a typical in nature,
but rather reflect closeness to an archtypical or prototypical concept of
blue.  Thus "blue" is "less non-blue than any non-blue object, or something
to that effect, though even this formulation may break down at the borders
between colors.



That is, a psychological theory about color recognition won out over a
linguistic theory about how color terms function in language.  That sounds
familiar.  In any case we got rid of the Angstrom unit crew and the fights
between the red-blue-whatevers and the cyan-magenta-whatevers -- and the
color spindleists.  

<Nora also had strong distaste for what is now "na se blanu", the negated
converse, which IIRC JCB attached special meaning to.>
I don't remember that but I do know what JCB could do with odd cases, so I
can imagine that as a powerful motive.
--part1_7d.140edbf2.2811ca2f_boundary--