>>23406134Colour perception is very much a matter of nurture. People who have been brought up to distinguish indigo and violet can easily tell the difference between two shades in ways that people brought up with simply purple can't. If a culture doesn't have a need to distinguish one hue from another then it won't create or acquire a term for it.
In the west, blue dyes caused people to create words for the colours they produced to distinguish them from their turquoise and indigo neighbours, and the same for the middle east, north africa and so on. But in other places in the world no such event occured, so they happily continued to use the same word for green and blue.
All cultures straight off the bat create words for black, white and red because those colours are fundamental and essentially vital for survival. The next colour after that is a word that will eventually become either green or blue, but at the time essentially means "not-red". This word is the one Japan for example used before contact with the West precipitated a distinction. Most cultures develop terms for "orange-yellow" and "brown-murky colours" before distinguishing blue and green, and some even create seperate terms for purple (and splits such as violet, pink, indigo, fuschia etc.) and grey beforehand.
>>23406151Okay, because there is an inherent difference in the frequency of light emitted by blue and red objects, and even very colourblind people can distinguish at least one of red from green or blue from yellow inherently.
>>23406193The colour wheel is largely abitrary. And I wouldn't use violet to refer to reddy-purple. I'd call dark magenta (aka central purple) violet and reddy-magenta fuschia.
