|
|
Post by Aurelia on Jun 23, 2020 9:10:19 GMT -5
There is a theory floating around that seems rather shocking... it seems that there is reason to believe that ancient peoples were unable to see the color blue.  View of the Port of Livorno (1601-1604). Cristofano Gaffuri.
The first observations that lead to this conclusion were published by William Ewert Gladstone (the same who was later a PM during the reign of Victoria), in his book, Studies of Homer and the Homeric Age. In his analysis of Homeric language in relation to colors, Gladstone concluded that there was no Greek word for blue. In order to describe the sea, the word oinops ("wine-looking") was used. It turns out that none of the ancient languages - whether Icelandic, Chinese, Arabic or Hebrew - had a distinctive word for blue. The first appearance of a distinctive terms for blue ( wꜣḏ) comes from the Ancient Egyptians, who were also the first to develop a blue dye ("Egyptian Blue" or calcium copper silicate). From there, the obsession with blue spread...  Astronomical Ceiling at the Temple of Hathor, Dendera Egypt. People argue that the development of word for color arise in a certain order - usually words to define white and black, followed by more specific words for the range of colors. It may be possible that without a word to help categorize one shade as being different from another, people generally didn't think too much about it beyond qualities of light versus dark. It may be that people need a word for color in order to see the shade. What do you think?  Detail of a miniature of medieval writer Christine de Pizan |
|
|
|
Post by Windischer on Jun 24, 2020 13:16:14 GMT -5
It may have something to do with language, culture and the environment one lives in. Russian has a strong distinction between dark and light blue with two completely different words. Certain Papuan languages have one word for green and blue is considered a shade of green (I have an idea why). I grew up believing there to be only three eye colours. Brown, blue and green. No hazel, amber, gray and such. Language does shape one's perception of the world to some degree. But perhaps it is wrong to say ancients couldn't see the colour blue as they couldn't all have been colour blind. How they defined it, rather, is the question.
Blue isn't the only such case. Until the end of the middle ages pretty much no European language had a word for the colour orange. While English used saffron or crog to reffer to orange before the 16th century, but if we look at the way orange things were described it becomes clear people mostly considered it just a shade of red or yellow. Similar as to how pink was seen as "little red" and thus was a colour for men. Pink for baby boys, blue for baby girls. The shift only happened in the 20th century.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aurelia on Jun 27, 2020 8:55:10 GMT -5
I guess there is the possibility of blue-yellow color blindness - which is now more rare than the usual red-green type. Blue-yellow color blindness is more inheritable, as in you only need one copy of the defective gene to experience colorblindness, versus red-green which is recessive X linked. Hey, it could happen... lol! The genes affected are 'in charge' of making proteins that help the eye interpret color - so a little tweak is the difference between seeing a range of colors, versus "wine-looking" everything. Apparently even cows were described as "wine-looking" by Homer (though I could picture reddish cows being compared to wine).
Studies done with people who do not have a word for blue in their language showed that without the word to signify the color, the color is not identified. In languages where there is a distinction between light blue and dark blue - but not a general word for blue - people were better able to identify which were dark versus light blues. They could do so much faster than people who had words for a general blue as well as light and dark blue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aurelia on Jun 27, 2020 8:58:08 GMT -5
Similar as to how pink was seen as "little red" and thus was a colour for men. Pink for baby boys, blue for baby girls. The shift only happened in the 20th century. The infant Jesus was often dressed in pink - like you said, the "watered down", very "male" color red.... Mary in blue (symbolic of purity as well). How the times have changed! |
|
|
|
Post by Windischer on Jun 28, 2020 13:05:15 GMT -5
I guess there is the possibility of blue-yellow color blindness - which is now more rare than the usual red-green type. Blue-yellow color blindness is more inheritable, as in you only need one copy of the defective gene to experience colorblindness, versus red-green which is recessive X linked. Hey, it could happen... lol! The genes affected are 'in charge' of making proteins that help the eye interpret color - so a little tweak is the difference between seeing a range of colors, versus "wine-looking" everything. Apparently even cows were described as "wine-looking" by Homer (though I could picture reddish cows being compared to wine). Studies done with people who do not have a word for blue in their language showed that without the word to signify the color, the color is not identified. In languages where there is a distinction between light blue and dark blue - but not a general word for blue - people were better able to identify which were dark versus light blues. They could do so much faster than people who had words for a general blue as well as light and dark blue. Colours are often good examples in favour of linfuistic relativism. I thought about colour blindness too, but I have a hard time imagining a whole ethnos being colour blind. Maybe a small tribe with their own language, where everyone is related (think Amazonia or Papua) but in cases like Greek it should be cultural, don't you think? I mean, it could have started out as colour blindness in the early stages of the language and then, like you said, if you don't have a word for it you don't think of it as a separate colour and once it becomes cultural and passed down, it becomes harder to fix it. Although they had contact with lots of peoples and at least some if not most of them had to have a word for blue. Celts, Italics, Ethruscans, Thracians, Illyrians, Scythians, Anatolians, Semites, Phoenicians, Egyptians etc etc. Good, they had quite a condescending attitude towards most foreigners but still, it probably wouldn't be a completely alien idea that blue is a colour of its own. Definitely would be interesting to see how it came about. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 25, 2020 11:56:50 GMT -5
I can think of at least one colour even today which has no genuine name and is generally described - imperfectly - as a type of green, grey, or blue, though it is none of those - or perhaps all of those. It lies closest on the spectrum to teal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Windischer on Dec 31, 2020 11:10:58 GMT -5
I can think of at least one colour even today which has no genuine name and is generally described - imperfectly - as a type of green, grey, or blue, though it is none of those - or perhaps all of those. It lies closest on the spectrum to teal. Are you talking about turquoise? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 31, 2020 11:32:18 GMT -5
I can think of at least one colour even today which has no genuine name and is generally described - imperfectly - as a type of green, grey, or blue, though it is none of those - or perhaps all of those. It lies closest on the spectrum to teal. Are you talking about turquoise? Haha. No. It's a darker colour than that. |
|
|
|
Post by Windischer on Dec 31, 2020 12:13:35 GMT -5
There's too many colours for me to know.  Turquoise is quite interesting too. If you look at the stone itself, there's two distinct shades of it. One is more on the green side and the other more blueish. Contrary to what the name says, buffalo turquoise is not actual turquoise, neither in colour nor in composition. |
|
|
|
Post by Aurelia on Dec 31, 2020 13:12:32 GMT -5
Are you talking about turquoise? Haha. No. It's a darker colour than that. I feel like I tried to order this color for my peafowl coop... one where it's hard to tell if it's just grey or green or blue... like a duck egg sort of shade. It was thr start of the shut down, so I thought I'd just order it online. What looked like this mercurial sort of shade on my screen ended up being delivered and looking like... a boringblue-grey. |
|
Turquoise is quite interesting too. If you look at the stone itself, there's two distinct shades of it. One is more on the green side and the other more blueish. Contrary to what the name says, buffalo turquoise is not actual turquoise, neither in colour nor in composition.