From: Aigius
Message: 58995
Date: 2008-06-03
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@>
wrote:
> >
> > --- stlatos <stlatos@> wrote:
> >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen"
> > > <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > ...
> > >
> > > > And why would anyone choose to characterize amber as "golden
> > > > resin" when they are practically the same color?
> > >
> > > I wouldn't say all sap, pitch, or resin (whatever the
original
> > > range of meanings) was golden.
>
> No, you would probably say pitch is black. So how does that get into
> the discussion? The relevant resins are golden.
>
> > > Even if the language somehow _only_ used *gi:tu to describe
golden
> > > amber/resin, there is no rule against redundancy in language
and
> > > such forms are common.
>
> What on earth are you talking about?
>
> ...
>
> > Maple sap is kind of clear but boils down to brown.
> > Copal is black.
> > Sangre de dragón, surprise, is red.
> > Rubber is white sap.
>
> Birch resin and fir resin, which is what people on the Baltic would
> have seen trees sweating out, are amber colored.
>
>
> Torsten
>