No one could see the colour blue until modern times

[Sanguine]

Fascinating!

Kevin Loria
Dec 25, 2015, 9:00 AM

This isn’t another story about that dress, or at least, not really.

It’s about the way that humans see the world, and how until we have a way to describe something, even something so fundamental as a colour, we may not even notice that it’s there.

Until relatively recently in human history, “blue” didn’t exist.

As the delightful Radiolab episode “Colours” describes, ancient languages didn’t have a word for blue — not Greek, not Chinese, not Japanese, not Hebrew. And without a word for the colour, there’s evidence that they may not have seen it at all....

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/what-is-blue-and-how-do-we-see-color-2015-2

This is older, but I'm just now reading it.  I had always wondered about the "wine dark sea".

[HoustonSam]

I tend to be a stickler for clear definitions, whether in debate here at TBR, in my work, or in teaching at church.  Clear definitions are, to me, an essential requirement for effective thinking, and useful in cutting through shallow and useless contention over trivialities.  It had never occurred to me that without a distinct *word* for a concept we might be *unable* to distinguish the concept.  I had chalked it up to intellectual laziness, not cognitive inability.

Those I know who tire of my pedantic insistence on clear definitions are unfortunately going to become more tired of it now.

[Sanguine]

I tend to be a stickler for clear definitions, whether in debate here at TBR, in my work, or in teaching at church.  Clear definitions are, to me, an essential requirement for effective thinking, and useful in cutting through shallow and useless contention over trivialities.  It had never occurred to me that without a distinct *word* for a concept we might be *unable* to distinguish the concept.  I had chalked it up to intellectual laziness, not cognitive inability.

Those I know who tire of my pedantic insistence on clear definitions are unfortunately going to become more tired of it now.

I found it quite compelling.  Did you do the green square thing? 

[HoustonSam]

I found it quite compelling.  Did you do the green square thing?

I'm pretty good at those subtle perception quizzes; I can distinguish shades of color better than most men, and I looked at the green squares very carefully.  I could not pick out the different square, neither before nor after knowing which was different.  I still can't distinguish anything different about the shade of green in that specific square.

[Oceander]

So what did the ancients who mined lapis lazuli call it, prior to the invention of “blue” and what color did they treat it as?  Lapis lazuli has been known for thousands of years, so it cut across this line.

[Sanguine]

I think this is the study that the article referred to:  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43627151_Colour_categories_and_category_acquisition_in_Himba_and_English

And, a perhaps better written version of this story:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2976405/Could-ancestors-blue-Ancient-civilisations-didn-t-perceive-colour-didn-t-word-say-scientists.html

Also:  http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb05/hues.aspx

[Fishrrman]

The entire premise is ridiculous.

What color is the sky on a clear day?
How long have humans been looking at it?

[roamer_1]

ancient languages didn’t have a word for blue [...] not Hebrew.

What a silly notion. Perhaps true from the aspect of a borrowed word from another Semitic source... Akkadian perhaps, etc, but without a doubt the Bible knows the color blue.

[Suppressed]

The entire premise is ridiculous.

What color is the sky on a clear day?
How long have humans been looking at it?

Did you read the story? @Fishrrman

[Sanguine]

ancient languages didn’t have a word for blue [...] not Hebrew.

What a silly notion. Perhaps true from the aspect of a borrowed word from another Semitic source... Akkadian perhaps, etc, but without a doubt the Bible knows the color blue.

Well....now, that's an interesting one.  Exodus 39 includes the word "blue".  But, when you go to the original Hebrew, it is not quite as clear: "probably for 'shcheleth' (7827); the cerulean mussel, i.e. the color (violet) obtained therefrom or stuff dyed therewith:--blue."

[Frank Cannon]

This seems to be more about a lack of a word than lack of a color. I never heard of a Transgendered person until recently but they always existed........we used to call them Cross Dressers.

BTW someone need to get off their lazy asses at BI and start proofreading. They have misspelled "color" numerous times throughout the article.

[240B]

The statement that Hebrew had no word for blue is incorrect.
From the Torah, written thousands of years B.C.

Bamidbar 15:38-40
Numbers 15:38-40 New International Version (NIV)

Speak to the Israelites and say to them: Throughout the generations to come you are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel. You will have these tassels to look at and so you will remember all the commands of the Lord, that you may obey them and not prostitute yourselves by chasing after the lusts of your own hearts and eyes. Then you will remember to obey all my commands and will be consecrated to your God.

[roamer_1]

Well....now, that's an interesting one.  Exodus 39 includes the word "blue".  But, when you go to the original Hebrew, it is not quite as clear: "probably for 'shcheleth' (7827); the cerulean mussel, i.e. the color (violet) obtained therefrom or stuff dyed therewith:--blue."

LOL! Ya right... PROBABLY... because they can't decipher the etymology, not because they can't decipher the meaning. Semitic languages are a monkey-knot.

Here is one for you - Zaphon, in most cases means north.
That one they do know the etymology, because it stands forth... Mount Zaphon is the unholy mountain of Ba'al, and it is in the north (roughly Turkey)

They surely knew what blue was. The paving around Yahovah's throne is of sapphire. The high priests tunic is blue, the tzitzit (tassels on the corners of a garment) have a blue thread running through them to remind the wearer of the Law of Yahova.  To suggest otherwise is nothing but absurdity.

[HoustonSam]

This seems to be more about a lack of a word than lack of a color. I never heard of a Transgendered person until recently but they always existed........we used to call them Cross Dressers.

I take the article to mean that the physiology of color perception among the ancients was the same as among us, but for lack of a word there was lack of a concept, and a corresponding inability to distinguish blue even though the rods and cones in the retina responded to those wavelengths selectively.

The moral of the story seems to be that if we don't know what to call something then we won't really see it.  Not sure I really believe that but if those African tribesmen couldn't distinguish blue from green then *something* is going on.  I don't suppose they are all just colorblind?

[roamer_1]

The statement that Hebrew had no word for blue is incorrect.
From the Torah, written thousands of years B.C.

YUP

[roamer_1]

The moral of the story seems to be that if we don't know what to call something then we won't really see it.  Not sure I really believe that but if those African tribesmen couldn't distinguish blue from green then *something* is going on.  I don't suppose they are all just colorblind?

Indeed. The word 'cattywompus' stands in direct opposition to the notion. If we need a word, we make one.

[Sanguine]

LOL! Ya right... PROBABLY... because they can't decipher the etymology, not because they can't decipher the meaning. Semitic languages are a monkey-knot.

Here is one for you - Zaphon, in most cases means north.
That one they do know the etymology, because it stands forth... Mount Zaphon is the unholy mountain of Ba'al, and it is in the north (roughly Turkey)

They surely knew what blue was. The paving around Yahovah's throne is of sapphire. The high priests tunic is blue, the tzitzit (tassels on the corners of a garment) have a blue thread running through them to remind the wearer of the Law of Yahova.  To suggest otherwise is nothing but absurdity.

Not necessarily - that's how we, who do see blue identify it.  But, again:  "from 'caphar' (5608); a gem (perhaps used for scratching other substances), probably the sapphire:--sapphire."

[roamer_1]

Not necessarily - that's how we, who do see blue identify it.  But, again:  "from 'caphar' (5608); a gem (perhaps used for scratching other substances), probably the sapphire:--sapphire."

Right - They can't define the root. That doesn't mean they can't define the meaning.

[Sanguine]

Right - They can't define the root. That doesn't mean they can't define the meaning.

No, not quite.  We assume "blue" when we see "sapphire", but it's not even clear that they were talking about what we know as sapphires or even blue sapphires. Sapphires are "typically blue, but natural "fancy" sapphires also occur in yellow, purple, orange, and green colors; "parti sapphires" show two or more colors." (Wikipedia)

[240B]

YUP

Blue and White are the national colors of Israel and Hebrews. This is no coincidence. It is from the Torah.

But the author has a point, in a weird way. All perceptions are individual. One person may say a food is sweet, while another may say it is bitter. One person may say a song is perfect, while another may say it is trash. Perceptions are NOT universal. They vary by individual like fingerprints.

There is not way to describe a color except in relation to another color. And it is impossible for any person to explain to another person what they are seeing perceiving in their brain. What you see as blue, I may see as what you would call red. But we would both call it blue because that is what we were taught the name of the color is.

The world you perceive may be a different dimension to me, and my world would be a different dimension to you. But we interact with each other because we have common points of reference in language, which may or may not be the same in our own heads. We will never know if what you see is what I see or if what you taste is what I taste. It is all an internal perception that is impossible to share, except through the limitations of language.

What is blue to you? I don't know?

[HoustonSam]

Indeed. The word 'cattywompus' stands in direct opposition to the notion. If we need a word, we make one.

I will happily defer to your knowledge of ancient Hebrew and the specifics of the Old Testament.  Clearly "blue", or something which could be so translated, was known to the descendants of Jacob by the time the law was given.  Not so sure that I've seen "cattywompus" in my studies of The Law and The Prophets.......

But do you find no merit in the idea that having *no* word for a concept inhibits the very cognition of the concept?  Perhaps we recognize more clearly that we needed a word after we have made the word.  Those who can recognize the need for the word are probably more adept at abstract thought, and the word itself then assists others, less erudite, to understand the concept.

Kant was famous, or perhaps notorious, for his use of distinct, almost perverse, definitions of words.  Without his formulation of the "synthetic a priori" I question whether anyone would have ever even *thought* of the concept.

[roamer_1]

No, not quite.  We assume "blue" when we see "sapphire", but it's not even clear that they were talking about what we know as sapphires or even blue sapphires. Sapphires are "typically blue, but natural "fancy" sapphires also occur in yellow, purple, orange, and green colors; "parti sapphires" show two or more colors." (Wikipedia)

Again, sophistry. It is using etymological uncertainty to push an absurd notion.

[Sanguine]

Again, sophistry. It is using etymological uncertainty to push an absurd notion.

Sophistry?  How so?  We don't know that what they were talking about were sapphires.  Could have been emeralds for all we know.  We may have decided they were sapphires by assuming what we now know as blue was what they were talking about, therefore the jewel must be sapphire. 

[Cyber Liberty]

[roamer_1]

Not so sure that I've seen "cattywompus" in my studies of The Law and The Prophets.......

 

But do you find no merit in the idea that having *no* word for a concept inhibits the very cognition of the concept?  Perhaps we recognize more clearly that we needed a word after we have made the word.  Those who can recognize the need for the word are probably more adept at abstract thought, and the word itself then assists others, less erudite, to understand the concept.

Well, you are talking to a redneck so I am probably not the best example. Surely with a moniker like @HoustonSam you are not immune to the concept that rednecks often use made-up words and colloquialisms to describe a concept distinctly where vocabulary is otherwise insufficient or laborious.

Hence my example of cattywompus, which may describe quite a few different concepts: Splayed, out-of-square, out of line, non-contiguous, and by analogy, nonconforming or unusual in a weird or unkind sense.

In fact, the concept can long lead the word or phrase: 'Because 'Merica'  is something that anyone can grasp as a concept, and that concept was valid long before the slang phrase defined that sort of unquestioning patriotic fervor, especially with it's humorous twist.

Kant was famous, or perhaps notorious, for his use of distinct, almost perverse, definitions of words.  Without his formulation of the "synthetic a priori" I question whether anyone would have ever even *thought* of the concept.

I think that unlikely. For two people that 'get it', the concept need not be described succinctly: 'Ya put that hoodig in the thingamajig and worry it up' means nothing really, without an understanding of a concept that remains undefined. Walking by some folks and catching that phrase would leave you unknowing of the process, because you don't know what they are talking about - But you probably know right off that 'hoodig' and 'thingamajig' are place holder words for something THEY understand, but cannot define explicitly... and you may know what 'worry em up' means too.

Somewhat the same is true in country navigation instructions... But I will relent, lest I become repetitious.