This is an interesting article discussing the evolution of the word "blue" in various languages and why it appears relatively recently.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/no-one-could-see-the-color-blue-until-modern-times/ar-BBi3GwP
That's just...odd. I can't imagine what it would be like not to see blue. I get what they are saying though. I was one square off when trying to discern the green box that was different.
Huh, weird. ???
Reading that article hurt my head a little, but I see what they're saying. Even understanding the reason(s) for it, though, I still can't get over the fact that "blue" is a relatively new thing.
Here's another thing about the color blue that will bend your head (forgive the irregular line breaks):
http://www.birdwatchersdigest.com/site/print.php?id=947
QuoteThe Blue Feathers of Happiness
by Gary S. Gerrone
Q: Which of these two statements is correct?
Yes, there is a bluebird - Or - No, there are no blue birds.
A: (You're gonna hate this!) Both!
Now, how can that be? Have birds and nature become so politically correct as to please everyone, and no one, at the same time?
Actually, the answer is found somewhere within the space between human language and physics.
There are many blue-looking birds out there. Many even have blue in their names - blue jay, blue-winged teal, black-throated blue warbler (great name for a great little bird). Some birds have "bluish" names like indigo bunting and cerulean warbler. There are even a few that are blue wannabes - great blue heron (they are about as blue as one of those blue tick pointer dogs). Why, there is even one called a bluebird!
Within the ability of our eyes and brains to interpret colors, most of these birds appear plainly blue. And that is okay, and true, inasmuch as our dependable eyes tend to send to our brains only the information that they receive. In the sense of spectral color coming from these bird's feathers that information is blue color.
But...and as an interpretive naturalist I have become a great 'but' fan...is this the true color of these birds' feathers?
As these feathers export light, the answer is, "Yes!" As these feathers are pigmented, the answer is, "No!" So, here we go again!
But wait, there is a best part...throughout the entire world, and the known galaxy, there isn't a single blue feather being naturally sported by any bird!
So, where does this blue color come from? Is it some sort of optical illusion? It is! But more than that, it is two optical illusions.
The physics of it is that objects can - in a simplistic fashion - absorb and reflect light. The absorbed color is negated. The reflected light is invisibly sent off into space. If, by chance, however, this reflected light is caught by an eye, and subsequently interpreted by a brain, then it becomes color.
This does sound truly weird, but light is invisible until it meets the eye. Things such as sunbeams, flashlight beams, and even lasers, are invisible unless they are reflected by some medium such as dust, smoke, and water vapor. These tiny objects - particulates to some - become the reflectors that bring the light to your eye for interpretation. Think about things in outer space, where there is mostly a clean vacuum - like some picture of the space shuttle or Hubble telescope. Sunbeams are not visible - just the black void of space. In an opposite sense, think of any movie where a flashlight is used - think of Jurassic Park. Those bright-beamed flashlights would look pretty insignificant if there were no smoke or fog to reflect their beams.
Now, back to those blue feathers.
Like all feathers, blue ones can reflect light in a couple of ways. If the surface is smooth - microscopically smooth - it can allow the pigment inside of the feather to dominate the reflection. This takes place on the molecular level and involves a bit of a prismatic effect.
Prisms are neat. It seems like they can take any light and turn it into a rainbow. But some specifically deformed prisms can retain certain colors and only reflect others. Pretty sneaky, huh? So, even a black-pigmented feather can look blue!
Most blue birds have smooth surfaced feathers, and the absorption and reflection of light takes place inside the feather. The outcome can be quite spectacular. Just picture all the tones of blue on a blue jay. Now, there's a prismatic work of art - especially given that the bird does not have a single blue feather on its body.
The other optical illusion is called iridescence, and it is quite common in birds. Here, the surface of the feather - again microscopically - has a scratched, or furrowed pattern. This is where the feather does its absorbing and reflecting of light. With a specific pattern of scratches or furrows, the feathers can give off a quite specific prismatic effect. Ducks and hummingbirds have the telltale shininess of iridescence.
I know that a mallard is not blue, but look at its head. Those are black feathers! At most angles the feathers show off as green. But take a look sometime when a mallard swims directly away from you - that's when its green head will turn purple! This is a common aspect of iridescence.
So, how about that quiz again? There isn't a single blue feather in the bird world, but thanks to physics, there are plenty of blue-looking birds. And, in at least one little way, it is quite a good reflection upon us.
I think there's a big difference between being unable to discern a slight variation in shading, and being unable to discern a significant variation of shading.
Still, back when I was in college, our dean of the college of communications had literally helped write The Book on broadcast communications law, and I scored a top grade with a final paper on how perceptual differences can affect whether a news report counts as libel or not; one minor example for sake of an illustration being whether the sky is one or neither of two film "colors" of blue.
Meanwhile, an inability to see blue may be why the Judeo-Christian scriptures from Hebrew into Greek will use a word that to them would have meant scarlet but to us means royal purple. That never made sense to me -- why wouldn't they have had distinctive words for the differences?? -- but they may have been physically incapable not only of seeing the color blue but even contributions to shades made by blue. There's no word for green either now that I think of it.
That sounds more like a physical capability, or lack of it, than a concept-expression failure. But was the capability missing, or not trained? Maybe I'd be physically capable of distinguishing fine shades of green by training; people with extensive color training in other regards can do that. A whole drastic wavelength shift, though?
This might well be a micro-evolutionary development; but if so it might be largely neutral, riding along as a side-effect of something else providing a survival-to-breed advantage. My ability to hear electrical current discharges is certainly of no use in spreading my genes around ;) , but I've heard that people who manifest synesthesia get laid a lot! ^-^
So 2000 years ago what color were Mirths balls.
Whatever color a Starfury is?
Quote from: MetalDog on March 03, 2015, 10:34:12 PM
Whatever color a Starfury is?
I think that's what comes out of them...
It occurred to me last night or the night before that any theory about an inability to distinguish blue might be easily shot to hell by the presence of blue elements in surviving artistic compositions, since that would be evidence people could in fact distinguish properly. Hindu blue-faced demons come immediately to mind; part of my brain thinks I've also seen blue stones/pigments used in surviving art from Europe / the Med dating back to a century or two on either side of 1st c. CE. (But I'm too lazy to go look that up.)
Quote from: JasonPratt on March 05, 2015, 05:53:22 PM
It occurred to me last night or the night before that any theory about an inability to distinguish blue might be easily shot to hell by the presence of blue elements in surviving artistic compositions, since that would be evidence people could in fact distinguish properly. Hindu blue-faced demons come immediately to mind; part of my brain thinks I've also seen blue stones/pigments used in surviving art from Europe / the Med dating back to a century or two on either side of 1st c. CE. (But I'm too lazy to go look that up.)
I think you're right.
Woad you believe it :o
The takeaway I got from the OP article was not that old-timey folks couldn't tell the color blue at all, just that it was not seen as a separate color in it's own right but a variant of other colors, especially related to familiar objects, that they already knew. They could probably pick out a blue stone from a bunch of green ones. They merely saw it as a different kind of green, or what have you. Also, in reference to Woad- wasn't the term actually used as a color, not just the plant stuff that Mel Gibson wore to the Freedom Dance?
there were other words used for blue.
azure, cerulean, sapphire ect
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 05, 2015, 10:19:42 PM
there were other words used for blue.
azure, cerulean, sapphire ect
...Star's balls...
Quote from: LongBlade on March 05, 2015, 11:51:57 PM
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 05, 2015, 10:19:42 PM
there were other words used for blue.
azure, cerulean, sapphire ect
...Star's balls...
Sadly, I suspect my own are far more so.
my take is that the ancient world knew what blue was but didn't use what we consider a modern description for it.
^^ That seems right.