orange

Former Member

my mate asked me this question and it is bugging me, what came first orange the colour or orange the fruit

Former Member

that has nothing to do with drugs matt. cease and decist posts. LOL
If anyone has the answer, please let cyberwheelie here know coz he's doin' my head in

Former Member

Well i wud say technically the word orange came first!
because b4 the word orange there was no word for orange so people didnt or wundt know what orange was
Even tho the fruit was around people wudnt have called it orange b4 the word was invented

Former Member

They were both discovered at the same time since the colour orange as it is seen in nature an man made products is almost always the product of oranges. the exeption to this in temperate climates is the carrot.

Former Member

i think oranges are the only orange coloured thing. carrots are carrot coloured.
the fruit orange came before the word orange, because the fruit would have been there before people knew to call it orange. it is also not an english fruit, and would be called something else in its country of origin, before the english speaking people would have even seen it to give it a name.
i dont know if in other languages the name for the fruit is the same as the name for the colour? anyone else know?

Former Member

ermmmm mods, as your so quick to move intresting topics from anything goes into the obscure world of the 15 year old moron, is it not possiblt to move this into anything goes ? <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

also the fruit orange, everything is technically colourless, its just some things reflect different parts of the complete spectrum of light (rainbow), so the colour orange only became a reality when eyes did and so as plants have been here far longer that eyes/brains, the orange fruit came first <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

[edited to include answer]

[ 09-05-2002: Message edited by: eb ]

Former Member

guanos the only 15 year old poster on this thread, why pick on him????
ok it had nothing to do with drugs but dont take it so seriously

Former Member

I think I know why it's in the drugs bitty. Could be a good question to think about when you're mashed! Bit of a headfuck perhaps?

Former Member

everything is technically colourless, its just some things reflect different parts of the complete spectrum of light (rainbow),

This is really a neat topic to discuss, although i wish it were in the anything goes forum.

I can see what your saying ebb, i've thought about this meny times before. But here's the counter.

Color is defined by humans. Although they may not have realized it when they first started using the word, reflected light from a particular place in the visible light spectrum is what people mean when they use the word color.

Sort of like the "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound" debate. The debate is really about the definition of the word 'sound'. The falling of the tree makes vibrations in the air, which would be possible for a person the hear, if there were anyone around to hear it (which there isn't). But for it to be considered a sound, does it have to be heard? Waving your hand in the air cerainly creates a distubance, our ears are simply not capable of detecting it, so does that make a sound? If we move the hand closer to our head, we can hear a slight 'whoosh' sound. So does the waving hane make a sound when it isn't close to your ear? Does a dog whistle make a sound? Well dogs can hear it, but they don't define what a sound is, humans do. Or we could take it all the way down to a very very slight movement. If we consider very high frequencies, very low frequecies, and very quiet or distant sounds, any disturbance of the air could be considered a sound. But if we define sound as 'a disturbance which is heard', then the tree does not actually make a noise. or we could define sound as any disturbance of the air which is possible to be heard. But then, is the tree in the forest really possible to be heard, if nobody is around to hear it? We could redefine the definition of sound as anything which would be possible to be heard, if there were a person there to hear it.

If a sound is any vibration in the air which would be possible to be heard if a person were present to detect it, then the question "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?", after replacing the word 'sound' with the new definition of sound, becomes "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it create a vibration in the air which would be possible to dectect if a person were present to hear it?" Using this definiton of sound makes the question look silly.

However, if we revert back to our definition of sound as "something which can be heard," then the tree does not make a sound, because it is not possible to hear it if nobody is around it.

oh my god where am i going with this.

Oh yeah.

So everything is colorless, if you do not define color as (roughly) 'a property of an object to reflect or emit light waves of a part of the visible light spectrum'

But the word color is defined by humans to mean that. Im not talking about any dictionary definiton, just the general meaning of the word. the word "color" is not quite as easily interpreted in different ways as is "sound".

So to say something is colorless is to say that it does not reflect or emit a part of the visible light spectrum.

But then, for something to be considered a color, or to have a color, must it first be visible by humans? We can't say that the center of a planet in another solar system is green, because we can't see it, but does that mean it does not have a color? We could treat the definiton of color in the same way as we could sound, but you get the idea.

i have to poop now