My Oxford Concise takes the word 'orange' back through Middle English,
Old French, Arabic ultimately to Persian 'naranj', but doesn't give the
meaning of the Persian word.
If the word 'orange' entered the English language at the same time as
knowledge of the fruit, and the Old English had no knowkedge of the
fruit, did Old English have no word for orange, the colour? (The
dictionary defines orange, the colour, as "reddish-yellow", the colour
of the orange fruit.)
On the other hand, if Old English had the word orange for the colour
before the English knew of the fruit, then the reason the fruit is
called 'orange' is simply because people got tired of saying "orange
fruit" all the time? And if so, why don't we say "yellow" instead of
"lemon"?
As a given civilization gets more and more advanced (in the racist
honkey meaning of the word), its language gets words for more and more
colors. Some primitive (again, in the racist honkey meaning) cultures
have words for only two colors: black and white. Those that have
words for only three colors invariably have black, white, and red.
More color names come out in a specific order, as civilization
increases.
Note that this is not to say that some rain forest dude can't tell
navy blue from maroon. He'll call them both "black", but he can
distinguish between them just as well as you and I can.
Bob Vesterman.
----------
This is the coolest of all sig files.
>Well, since this is a.f.c.a., let's see what Cecil has to say:
>"The noun preceded the adjective, deriving ultimately from the
>Sanskrit _naranga_, 'orange tree.' It is thought that the
>initial n may have been dropped in French or Italian as it was
>assimilated into the definite article -- i.e., _une_narange_
>became _une_arange_, and _una_narancia_ became _una_arancia_.
>The first English use of the word 'orange' as a color adjective
>appears to have been in 1620."
>"The Straight Dope", by Cecil Adams (ISBN 0-345-33315-2), p. 344.
What Cecil does not tell us is: What did they call the color BEFORE 1620?
>
> Well, since this is a.f.c.a., let's see what Cecil has to say:
>
> "The noun preceded the adjective, deriving ultimately from the
> Sanskrit _naranga_, 'orange tree.' It is thought that the
> initial n may have been dropped in French or Italian as it was
> assimilated into the definite article -- i.e., _une_narange_
> became _une_arange_, and _una_narancia_ became _una_arancia_.
> The first English use of the word 'orange' as a color adjective
> appears to have been in 1620."
>
How does William of Orange fit into this? According to Groliers, "William
the Silent, count of Nassau, who held estates in the Netherlands, became
William I, Prince of Orange, in 1544." Does the principality of Orange
have nothing to do with the fruit or color?
Hank Gillette
Well, since this is a.f.c.a., let's see what Cecil has to say:
"The noun preceded the adjective, deriving ultimately from the
Sanskrit _naranga_, 'orange tree.' It is thought that the
initial n may have been dropped in French or Italian as it was
assimilated into the definite article -- i.e., _une_narange_
became _une_arange_, and _una_narancia_ became _una_arancia_.
The first English use of the word 'orange' as a color adjective
appears to have been in 1620."
"The Straight Dope", by Cecil Adams (ISBN 0-345-33315-2), p. 344.
I forgot to put this part in my earlier post. Being that color words
come out in a fairly specific order with advancing civilization, and
being that "red" and "yellow" come out before "orange", most likely
this color was called "red" or "yellow", depending upon exactly what
shade it was.
Another thing I forgot to mention in my earlier post: the original
questioner asked why we don't call "yellow" "lemon". Again, color
words are created in a specific order as civilization increases, and
"yellow" is created fairly early (earlier than orange, at least). The
color that we call yellow probably had a word associated with it in
some forbearer of the English language before the people who spoke
that language saw a lemon. Orange (the color), on the other hand,
comes later in the sequence, and thus people had been exposed to
oranges (the fruit) before a word for the color was created.
[Snip.]
>>The first English use of the word 'orange' as a color adjective
>>appears to have been in 1620."
>
>>"The Straight Dope", by Cecil Adams (ISBN 0-345-33315-2), p. 344.
>
>What Cecil does not tell us is: What did they call the color BEFORE 1620?
Well, Geoffrey Chaucer, at least, took the easy way out. From the
_Canterbury Tales_ (late 14th century):
The cercles of his eyen in his heed,
They gloweden bitwixen yelow and reed . . .
(Knight's Tale, I.2131-2)
His colour was bitwixe yelow and reed . . .
(Nun's Priest's Tale, VII.2902)
In other words, orange, for Chaucer, was simply "betwixt yellow and red",
as we would now spell it.
Kevin Wald, wa...@math.uchicago.edu | "Catalog of ships -- I'll remember that."
http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~wald | -- Homer, _The Huntress and the Sphinx_
>I vaguely remember something like "narang" meaning orange fruit (not
>color) in Sanskrit.
>As a given civilization gets more and more advanced (in the racist
>honkey meaning of the word), its language gets words for more and more
>colors. Some primitive (again, in the racist honkey meaning) cultures
>have words for only two colors: black and white. Those that have
>words for only three colors invariably have black, white, and red.
>More color names come out in a specific order, as civilization
>increases.
I have seen this list once, at it is not universaly valid. The one
word on the list that does not exist in my language is not at the
bottom.
Klaus O K
I oversimplified. Rather than what I implied (something like
"black/white then red then blue then yellow then green then brown then
orange...") it's more like "black/white then red then blue then yellow
then green then one of {brown/orange/purple} then another of
{brown/orange/purple} then the last of {brown/orange/purple} then one
of {pink/aqua/maroon} then another of {pink/aqua/maroon}...".
The order I just listed was totally made up, by the way. It's been
years since I read the book I got this stuff from.
What language, by the way, and what color word is missing?
>How does William of Orange fit into this? According to Groliers, "William
>the Silent, count of Nassau, who held estates in the Netherlands, became
>William I, Prince of Orange, in 1544." Does the principality of Orange
>have nothing to do with the fruit or color?
Yes, the House of Orange is etymologically unrelated to either the
fruit or the color. The family derives the name from a place name
whose etymological origin escapes me at the moment.
Dave Wilton
dwi...@sprynet.com
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dwilton/
According to the OED they used the word orange for color along with fruit or
tree in the 14th century and before that there were many words used to describe
the color.
Grandfather Bob(dege...@aol.com)
Modesty in the face of talent is hypocrisy.
Better honest arrogance than false modesty
>In other words, orange, for Chaucer, was simply "betwixt yellow and red",
>as we would now spell it.
We would spell it reddish yellow. I don't think I have ever used
betwixt in a sentence before today.
>What language, by the way, and what color word is missing?
Danish, and IMO no word is missing. We do have words for lighter
versions of the "main" colors, but they are all formed by adding
the word for light. Light blue, light red, light green and so on.
The list I saw had "pink" as a seperate color, but none of the others.
Why include light red (and give it a special name) and not e.g. light
blue?
Klaus O K
>wa...@ford.uchicago.edu (Kevin Wald) wrote:
You didn't use it above, you just mentioned it. Not the same thing.
The statutes for the Order of Dannebrog specifies that the robes of
the knights grand cross be "aurora". The color shown in old paintings
is betwixt orange and red.
Klaus O K
>Danish, and IMO no word is missing. We do have words for lighter
>versions of the "main" colors, but they are all formed by adding
>the word for light. Light blue, light red, light green and so on.
>
>The list I saw had "pink" as a seperate color, but none of the others.
>Why include light red (and give it a special name) and not e.g. light
>blue?
My perception makes a distinction between pink and pastel red. There
is a different distinction between cyan and pastel blue, but I didn't
percieve it until I got into using a 16-colour computer. The
distinction between pastel red and pink was always there for me.
Especially if you head off towards "hot" or "shocking" pink as opposed
to the "kind of wistful" pink I mentioned in a different branch of
this thread.
> Danish, and IMO no word is missing. We do have words for lighter
> versions of the "main" colors, but they are all formed by adding
> the word for light. Light blue, light red, light green and so on.
>
> The list I saw had "pink" as a seperate color, but none of the others.
> Why include light red (and give it a special name) and not e.g. light
> blue?
Russian, as I think I have said in this forum in years past, has distinct
and dissimilar words for light and dark blue, which to a Russian are
"different colors."
>Russian, as I think I have said in this forum in years past, has distinct
>and dissimilar words for light and dark blue, which to a Russian are
>"different colors."
Yes. Off the top of my head, dark blue is sínij [SEE-nee] and golubój
[golooBOY] is light blue, which is also the slang for
"gomoseksjualist" (i.e. it means "gay"]. I can't remember whether
golubój is pejorative or not.
Jay Shorten
jsho...@ix.netcom.com
Librarian, Canarsie Branch
Brooklyn Public Library
Look, these are human cultural constructions, OK? Ontologically, there is
no more "real distinction" between pink and pastel red than between pastel
and deep blue. We have a separate word for pink because it's handy. Lots
of things are pink; various conspicuous body parts, for example, in many
cases. Who wants light red gums?
In any case, the color I find most interesting is brown. As with pink, we
have a commonly used word for its lighter version ("tan"), though I don't
think most people would call tan a pastel. And you can get brown by
lowering the intensity of all of the major warm colors and arguably green
and purple. But not blue. And you hardly ever see brown lights, although
amber comes close. Great color.
--
<><><> "Dammit, if Kenny Networking made easy: I am seeking
Greg<> keeps eating people new employment in the Pittsburgh
<>/\<> we're never gonna area starting 1/98. If you hear of
<>\/<> get any candy!" anything good, let me know! <GAD>
>In article <3494e155...@news.direct.ca>,
>Greg Goss <gg...@direct.ca> wrote:
>>My perception makes a distinction between pink and pastel red. There
>>is a different distinction between cyan and pastel blue, but I didn't
>>percieve it until I got into using a 16-colour computer. The
>>distinction between pastel red and pink was always there for me.
>
>Look, these are human cultural constructions, OK? Ontologically, there is
>no more "real distinction" between pink and pastel red than between pastel
>and deep blue. We have a separate word for pink because it's handy. Lots
>of things are pink; various conspicuous body parts, for example, in many
>cases. Who wants light red gums?
I know we are talking about cultural constructions. I have a separate
word for pink because for me (trained by my culture, genes and
experiences), pink is in a different colour family than pastel red.
As opposed to amber and yellow. These are different shades to me, but
belong to the same colour. In conversation, I've found that "amber"
is a variable colour. You can think of a stoplight's warning light as
part of "yellow", or part of "orange", part of yellow because you
don't think of "orange" as a real colour, or as a colour to itself.
In Amber, I see it as connected. In Pink I do not. You and I are
both north-americans, with a powerful colour medium homogenizing our
cultures. I find these variations in perception of colour fascinating
and wonder if they can link to deep truths of some kind.
>I know we are talking about cultural constructions. I have a separate
word
>for pink because for me (trained by my culture, genes and
experiences), pink
>is in a different colour family than pastel red.
Can you give some examples of objects that are pink and those
that are pastel red? Under-ripe tomatoes? Mosquito bites on
fair-skinned people?
Actually, it's hard to think of commonly seen examples that don't
vary much. Obviously, it's no use referring to roses, lipstick, or
apples.
Regards from Deborah
>In article <34959da6...@news.direct.ca>, gg...@direct.ca (Greg Goss)
>writes:
>
>>I know we are talking about cultural constructions. I have a separate
>word
>>for pink because for me (trained by my culture, genes and
>experiences), pink
>>is in a different colour family than pastel red.
>
>Can you give some examples of objects that are pink and those
>that are pastel red? Under-ripe tomatoes? Mosquito bites on
>fair-skinned people?
My best example of pastel red is the flesh tone of caucasians in
colour comics. To me that colour is not pink. It is difficult for me
to find examples of non-screaming pink off the top of my head. We
probably agree that "dayglo" and "shocking" are not pastel colours.
My pink does approach pastel red closer than that but I'm blank on
examples.
>>>What Cecil does not tell us is: What did they call the color BEFORE 1620?
>
>According to the OED they used the word orange for color along with fruit or
>tree in the 14th century and before that there were many words used to describe
>the color.
>
>
>Grandfather Bob(dege...@aol.com)
So OED mentions that there were "many words used to describe the
color." I would be interested to know what words they are refering
to...
There is actually pale yellow added there, behind the red dots. The color is a
something along the lines of 10 percent magenta, and 10 percent yellow, with
the off white of the newspring leaning it the rest of the way towards a flesh
tone. Where the magenta and yellow dots overlap, that is closer to what we
consider red.
Sometime it is used for fleshtones without the yellow added, it looks a bit
pinker there.
Often what people consider pinks have a considerably deep saturation of a purer
color, whereas pastels by definition are not deeply saturated