Log into Facebook
Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.
A sidenote to this, linguistically speaking,Who knew about this? I didn't!
I don't know whether that article is right or wrong, but the blue pigment doesn't prove much by itself; it could still be that they would have regarded this blue as just one shade of the "green-blue" color.This reminded me of the article according to which the ancient Romans didn't "know" the color blue, or distinguish it from green.
I was thinking of that, however according to the description, green pigment was used as well. I am not sure how accurate that is.I don't know whether that article is right or wrong, but the blue pigment doesn't prove much by itself; it could still be that they would have regarded this blue as just one shade of the "green-blue" color.
Yes but, again, it could be that the green and blue pigments were shades of the same for them.I was thinking of that, however according to the description, green pigment was used as well. I am not sure how accurate that is.
(Overall, though, it was green; not nearly as ambiguous as caeruleus.)I was going to say that viridis seemed to have been unambiguoulsy "green", but Lewis & Short actually claims it could also mean "bluish green"... I don't know if it's right, but that's what it says: https://alatius.com/ls/index.php?met=up&ord=viridis