21 02 16

but    to the
      aus­tra­lian abo­ri­gine    an aran­da say    among the aran­da
     there is i take it   a dif­ferent way of loo­king at all this    or at
      least a dif­ferent way of tal­king about what we have just been
     loo­king at     for in aran­da     in the ver­na­cu­lar aran­da sys­tem
   as it exis­ted in the 19th cen­tu­ry    there were accor­ding to the
      people fami­liar with them      four      or actual­ly five
     fun­da­men­tal color terms    two blacks    white    red
      and one other term for all the rest    one black was pur­ka
       used of char­coal    and the other was uru­pul­la    which inclu­ded
     brown and a fair range of greys    white was chu­run­gu­ra
       red tutu­ka    and the other was tier­ga    the sky was tier­ga a
      green leaf was tier­ga   and yel­low ocher was also tier­ga
                                                  now this is a
     very dif­ferent sys­tem for tal­king about seeing than ours   one
     for red      and one for the range of blue yel­low and green
                                                   i have no doubt
     that we could per­suade any rea­so­nable aran­da gent­le­man or lady
    to dis­tin­guish bet­ween sky color leaf color and the color ocher
      and they could do this very han­di­ly   this gent­le­man or lady
       an aran­da pain­ter maybe    they could say that of course
     one was sky tier­ga the other was leaf tier­ga and the last was
    ocher tier­ga but that they were mere­ly three dif­ferent shades of
      the same color    tier­ga    that is    that they were all the
        same color but modi­fied by some other aspect of vision that
      weve cho­sen to call « shade »    which would be somew­hat simi­lar
    to our « light » and « dark » or « deep » or « thin » or « satu­ra­ted » or
     « not »    but we real­ly wouldnt have any appro­priate name for
   this fea­ture of vision that we have just cal­led « shade » but which
     applies to a somew­hat dif­ferent range of visual expe­riences
       because their word « color » would also not apply to quite the
     same visual expe­riences of loo­king as ours    or would apply in
       a dif­ferent way    so their word « shade »     which would
      depend for its signi­fi­cance on their word « color »    as our word
       « shade » depends on our word « color »    would not be at all
      the same and we would sim­ply not have any word for it that
    came conve­nient­ly to hand though we might very well know what
      they mean by it
                      and this leads to inter­es­ting conclu­sions
    because it seems that « blue » occu­pies a dif­ferent seman­tic space
       to use our old for­ma­list concep­tion of word mea­ning     a
     dif­ferent seman­tic space than our word « blue » and that not only
     that    their concep­tion of « color » pro­ba­bly has a dif­ferent
       spa­tial confi­gu­ra­tion in the seman­tic domain of aran­da loo­king
     than our notion « color »

,
« tuning » tuning
, , ,
p. 105–121