{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/1/2015 3:33:18 AM
17
Fun fact, Oranges are named after the color and not the other way around. Prove me wrong.
English
-
The fruit came before the colour. The word “orange” derives from the Arabic naranj and arrived in English as “narange” in the 14th century, gradually losing the initial “n”. This process is called wrong word division and also left us with apron (from naperon) and umpire (from noumpere). Orange was first used as the name for a colour in 1542.
-
Because in order to have a word for something, it must first exist in reality or thought. Because colors only exist if we see them, a representation of the color must have come before the word. Thus, the fruit came before the color.
-
Actually things were orange long before we assigned it the word. Sunsets have been around for a long time, much longer than the fruit has existed. Now, before you try and tell me that doesn't work allow me to ask this. What did animals do to track and kill a prey for their meals before we came along and called it hunting?
-
[quote]Because in order to have a word for something, it must first exist in reality or thought. Because colors only exist if we see them, a representation of the color must have come before the word. Thus, [b]the fruit came before the color.[/b][/quote] it really isn't... I said things were orange long before the fruit was even discovered. They were called something before we decided to assign it that word in the first place. Much like how hunting existed long before we decided to call it "hunting".
-
Yes, something must be to be named. Unfortunately, thas nothing to do with the conversation. Thanks for the armchair philosophizing, but the discussion is about a color deriving its name from an existing thing, not whether the idea for a color must exist before the name (which is a no-brainer non-statement).
-
I'm providing a counter-argument to your suggestion that because a color is only a concept (or to be more precise, a qualia) that the color orange must have been named after the orange colored fruit. It is true that in order to define a color, an object must exist to compare it to, but the fact that there is no object called a blue is proof that colors are not always named after the objects that they are compared to. Since oranges (the fruit) are not the only orange-colored thing, it's entirely possible that something else orange, let's say a sunset, was the original thing that defined orange as a color, and it was named arbitrarily, just as most other colors are, and that the fruit was later named after the color. I mean, that's not what happened, and the color is named after the fruit, but your argument for why the color [i]must[/i] be named after the fruit is flawed.
-
CaptainMericahにより編集済み: 12/1/2015 6:38:46 PMI never said colors are always named for a thing. If sunsets were the original orange, why aren't sunsets called oranges? The fruit was named, then that name was used to describe other things of that color. It's most logical, most likely process.
