Add to that the idea that some cultures have fewer color terms than others. This actually impacts upon their perception of color.
Check out "Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution" by Brent Berlin and Paul Kay.
Check out "Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution" by Brent Berlin and Paul Kay.
It affects communication. People can still discern the difference between colors, they just don't have an easy way to communicate this difference to others.
The Japanese language until relatively recently didn't have a clear verbal distinction between what we call green and blue in English. That doesn't mean Japanese people can't tell the difference between green and blue. It just means that there is a kind of "blue" that is the sky and a kind of "blue" that is for traffic control lights, and in context nobody is confused.
The same issue can occur within a language between people with differing levels of study of color. A graphic designer might say a particular shade of green is "chartreuse" that his boss instead might call "yellowish green".
Bad example. It seems that there is still a lot of disagreement on this matter, much of it rooted in what constitutes a word.
A well-balanced article on the subject here:
https://linguisticdiscovery.com/posts/inuit-words-for-snow/
Edit…
Also, from that article, a fascinating study: ‘Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination’
It is also true that among mammals, chromatic vision is pretty much restricted to primates. The ability to perceive difference of light is a must if you don't want to become someone else's food. In contrast, chromatic vision is an 'extra' that in many ways serves as a (literally) florid extension to our lives. To me it is no surprise that range of emotion and range of hue are so often associated with each other. Interestingly enough, they are similarly mapped: as a set of differences, rather than as a degree of intensity.
As for the "Russian blue" study, I find it strange that the article is so skeptical of unreplicated results in linguistics and yet seems to accept the "Russian blue" study uncritically. I can see at least one glaring flaw: all of the Russian speakers were bi-lingual with English, with at least some of them being so since they were young children. They also discarded 16% of their test data because they deemed responses "too slow", with this discarding more heavily weighted towards the Russian speakers.