It's interesting to note that the development of initial basic (monolexemic, that is, unmodified by adjectives) color terms in language seems to be nearly universal in its pattern.

Two-term languages distinguish dark/cool/black vs. light/warm/black. Three-term languages add red. At four terms, the language has one of green or yellow; five terms, and it gets the other. The next is blue, then brown. Though apparently Chinese and Japanese, for some time, merged blue and green.

Some languages distinguish colors differently, as well. For example, Russian has two terms for blue: siniy which is darker, vs. goluboy which is lighter. These are considered as different as blue and purple are in English; though we may distinguish azure from navy blue, they are still both subsets of blue. Likewise, Hungarian distinguishes between piros, darker, redder reds, or inanimate objects which are red, typically; and vörös, for brighter, livelier reds or the reds of living things.

Good morning OakOy! Your questions always make me think!

I am not too sure what your are getting at here, so I'll just go with where my thoughts were taking me.

Color is nothing in an of itself. It is the marriage of light and an object's ability to reflect certain light freqencies that impart color. Here's a good excerpt.

The color of an object is not actually within the object itself. Rather, the color is in the light that shines upon it and is ultimately reflected or transmitted to our eyes. We know that the visible light spectrum consists of a range of frequencies, each of which corresponds to a specific color. When visible light strikes an object and a specific frequency becomes absorbed, that frequency of light will never make it to our eyes. Any visible light that strikes the object and becomes reflected or transmitted to our eyes will contribute to the color appearance of that object. So the color is not in the object itself, but in the light that strikes the object and ultimately reaches our eye. The only role that the object plays is that it might contain atoms capable of selectively absorbing one or more frequencies of the visible light that shine upon it. So if an object absorbs all of the frequencies of visible light except for the frequency associated with green light, then the object will appear green in the presence of ROYGBIV. And if an object absorbs all of the frequencies of visible light except for the frequency associated with blue light, then the object will appear blue in the presence of ROYGBIV.presence of ROYGBIV.]1

So it seems that color would be different in different part of the world depending on the quality of light. Maybe blue is bluer in some places because the sun shines more brightly, or more muted.

Thanks OakOy - Kepp relaxed. Enjoy YOUR sucess and the lovely time.

For me, color is life, it is beauty, it is what sets things apart. When I am sad, I am blue. When I am mad I am red. White is nothingness, if everything had no color to set it apart, it would all blend in together.

i guess thinking about it for a few minutes, as far as nutrition goes, i always thought it was interesting that the presence of polyphenols and certain other compounds (beta carotene comes to mind) in food can be ascertained by their color. kurt harris wrote someting a while back talking about polyphenols:

the benefit of low doses of radiation – the kind we get naturally all the time from cosmic rays and naturally occurring radioactive isotopes – and the slightly toxic colorful compounds called polyphenols found in fruits and vegetables, is that both act through hormesis.

he then recommended

Eat enough plant material to keep you out of constant ketosis. Favor plants as whole foods rich in starch over fructose for caloric value, but try to include a moderate variety of colorful plants as well, for the likely hormetic effects. After these criteria, pick the particular plants you eat based on palatability and your individual tolerance.