Is It Correct to Use 'Bluer Than Blue' as a Metaphor in English?

[ikos9lives]

English is just our second language. I would like to ask the people from English speaking countries if it is correct to use it? I think anything "bluer" would obviously just be blue.

Ideas?

 

[wuliheron]

Blue can also mean "sad" in English, so bluer than blue can mean "depressed".

 

[disregardthat]

It doesn't even make sense. 'Blue' as a concept has no color, color is an attribute to physical things.

 

[G037H3]

It doesn't even make sense. 'Blue' as a concept has no color, color is an attribute to physical things.

It is possible to add secondary attributes to concepts. Or secondary concepts to ideas.

 

[disregardthat]

It is possible to add secondary attributes to concepts. Or secondary concepts to ideas.

What is a "secondary attribute"? Whatever it is, it isn't material color; given that it can be attributed to concepts.

 

[G037H3]

What is a "secondary attribute"? Whatever it is, it isn't material color; given that it can be attributed to concepts.

Attribute in this case could be synonymous with meaning.

We have the word 'blue'. The primary meaning of blue is the color, referring to a specific range on the visible light spectrum.

When we refer to feeling 'blue', we are using the word blue as a synonym for depression, which has become a culturally normative statement for multiple reasons, including several famous pianists associating blue with a particular note.

You must learn to disconnect yourself from the immediate material meaning of something if you wish to pick up the interwoven nuances of language and culture.

 

[inflector]

English is just our second language. I would like to ask the people from English speaking countries if it is correct to use it? I think anything "bluer" would obviously just be blue.

Ideas?

We often say "deep blue" for a very blue blue.

 

[Andre]

The bluest blue in nature is probably Lapis Lazuli, together with variations like Azurite or Ultramarine used as pigment in oil paint during the better part of the previous millenium. However grinded gems are still extremely valuable and lapis lazuli was the most expensive paint in existence. Obviously the pigment became increasingly sparse, but then a simple synthetic process was discovered by accident in a lime kiln. Hence Ultramarine is now one of the most common -most bluish- pigments. Obviously, such a cheap compount was not allowed to carry the aristocratic name 'Lapis Lazuli' although it's supposed to be chemically identical.

(good diner conversation trivia. used it a few times)

 

[disregardthat]

You must learn to disconnect yourself from the immediate material meaning of something if you wish to pick up the interwoven nuances of language and culture.

Blue as in the material color blue was implied; being the most common interpretation out of context as in the original question, and as such it should be explicitly clarified if something else was meant.

 

[G037H3]

Blue as in the material color blue was implied, being the most common interpretation out of context; and as such it should be explicitly clarified if something else was meant.

Then just respond to what "bluer than blue" actually means, instead of asserting what material blue is, which I'm certain nearly everyone knows. :P

 

[disregardthat]

Then just respond to what "bluer than blue" actually means, instead of asserting what material blue is, which I'm certain nearly everyone knows. :P

Well, it didn't immediately seem that this category difference was apparent, since it did seem to me that he was referring to material blue. It might just be me unfamiliar with English common phrases however...

 

[G037H3]

Well, it didn't immediately seem that this category difference was apparent, since it did seem he was referring to material blue.

Oh, then we are likely referring to different usages, as I was going forward from the context of it meaning a state of emotion, as opposed to a physical quality. :)

 

[yrreg]

English is just our second language. I would like to ask the people from English speaking countries if it is correct to use it? I think anything "bluer" would obviously just be blue.

Ideas?

I am not from an English speaking country in the sense that English is the mother tongue of the natives there.

But I believe that I understand English and modesty aside that I write decent English as to be intelligible to English conversant peoples.

Yes, it makes sense to ask what is bluer than blue if you have one particular blue colored thing and another particular blue colored thing; so that from your not-color-blind eye you can judge which one is bluer than the other.


That brings in the question where does blue starts and ends being blue?

It can be no longer blue because the blue gets so light that your eye cannot anymore see any blue in it, or it gets so blue that your eye cannot anymore see any blue in it.


Your question asking what is bluer than blue? is it a meaningless question?

Like what Hawking is supposed to have said:

Asking what comes before the Big Bang:

• ...is like asking, what is north of North Pole? which is a meaningless question.*

To my thinking, no it is not a meaningless question, unless your idea of meaningful questions is a priori limited to a self-chosen field of questions which does not admit of any questions outside; like for example the world of the Big Bang, so that the world of the Big Bang is the only world you want to think about, and nothing outside should engage your intelligence -- which is to my thinking very unintelligent.

Is there a world outside the Big Bang world?

Of course there is, on intelligent thinking alone, because experts of the Big Bang world tell us that it has a beginning, that is why.

Is there a north beyond the north pole?

Of course yes, because there is a point that is more farther north of the north pole.

Simple intelligent thinking.

Unless you have reached the last frontier of the north pole beyond which you cannot anymore not even in your imagination conjure a point more north, so that you can say non plus ultra.


In regard to something more blue than another thing that depends on your eye.

But in regard to what is north of the north pole that depends upon your intelligent thinking.



Yrreg

*What is north of the north pole being a meaningless question is usually attributed to Hawking, but see this author who attributes it to Penrose. So does anyone have any writing of Hawking or Penrose where we can read that question and answer?
​

 

[preluderacer]

BLUECOLD! ahaha... crickets

 

[BobG]

Regardless of whether they were referring to the color blue or to a sad mood, the analogy is the same.

The implied meaning is that the object was the purest, most beautiful blue the person had ever seen. He never really understood what blue was until he looked into her eyes, etc.

Or the implied meaning is that the person was more sad and depressed than anyone could ever imagine. He never really understood what sadness was until she turned those blue eyes to gaze at another.

Similar to saying a person is deader than a doornail, purer than pure, less brains than a rock, flatter than a board, etc. Phrases that are technically impossible, but imply that something is the penultimate in that particular category.

 

[Evo]

Or it could be a bad country western song or a Barry Manilow release.

I've never heard anyone use the term, so I assume it has to do with the song.

http://www.google.com/search?source...-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS339US339&q=bluer+than+blue

 

[lisab]

Bluer is a bit more blue than blue, but not as blue as bluest.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

There used to be a laundry product whose manufacturer claimed it made blue things bluer and white things whiter. I don't know if it was modesty or honesty that prevented them from claiming that it made lavender things lavenderer. I wonder what effect it had on ultramarine things.

 

[G037H3]

There used to be a laundry product whose manufacturer claimed it made blue things bluer and white things whiter. I don't know if it was modesty or honesty that prevented them from claiming that it made lavender things lavenderer. I wonder what effect it had on ultramarine things.

The process of washing clothes eventually turns things that are white somewhat yellow, and to counteract this, bluing agent began to be used.

 

[ikos9lives]

I am not from an English speaking country in the sense that English is the mother tongue of the natives there.

But I believe that I understand English and modesty aside that I write decent English as to be intelligible to English conversant peoples.

Yes, it makes sense to ask what is bluer than blue if you have one particular blue colored thing and another particular blue colored thing; so that from your not-color-blind eye you can judge which one is bluer than the other.


That brings in the question where does blue starts and ends being blue?

It can be no longer blue because the blue gets so light that your eye cannot anymore see any blue in it, or it gets so blue that your eye cannot anymore see any blue in it.


Your question asking what is bluer than blue? is it a meaningless question?

Like what Hawking is supposed to have said:

Asking what comes before the Big Bang:

• ...is like asking, what is north of North Pole? which is a meaningless question.*

To my thinking, no it is not a meaningless question, unless your idea of meaningful questions is a priori limited to a self-chosen field of questions which does not admit of any questions outside; like for example the world of the Big Bang, so that the world of the Big Bang is the only world you want to think about, and nothing outside should engage your intelligence -- which is to my thinking very unintelligent.

Is there a world outside the Big Bang world?

Of course there is, on intelligent thinking alone, because experts of the Big Bang world tell us that it has a beginning, that is why.

Is there a north beyond the north pole?

Of course yes, because there is a point that is more farther north of the north pole.

Simple intelligent thinking.

Unless you have reached the last frontier of the north pole beyond which you cannot anymore not even in your imagination conjure a point more north, so that you can say non plus ultra.


In regard to something more blue than another thing that depends on your eye.

But in regard to what is north of the north pole that depends upon your intelligent thinking.



Yrreg

*What is north of the north pole being a meaningless question is usually attributed to Hawking, but see this author who attributes it to Penrose. So does anyone have any writing of Hawking or Penrose where we can read that question and answer?
​

Citing "simple intelligent thinking" is not a replacement for an actual argument. By definition, there is nothing farther north than the north pole. Once you reach the north pole, all directions are south. Imagination doesn't enter into it. Equivocation is a logical fallacy.