Talk:Color Naming Rule/@comment-226878-20151201003802

Yes, all animals have colors, but most animals are not actually associated with a color strongly enough to become a reference in themselves. If in a game of naming colors, you heard someone say cardinal, canary, raven, albatross, flamingo, dove, mallard, or even robin (for some reason), all of those words would be acceptable as complying to the rules of the game. But if you said something like lion, you'd be laughed at and you'd lose. I'll point out we have no confirmation that Arslan's first name was meant as the color reference as her surname means both "red dawn" and "golden."

Of course, it's up to you if you want to throw out the rulebook. Honestly, what's the point of the CNR if we can just pick everything apart and say, "this has a color, it fits cnr." No. First and foremost, it has to make people think of a color. Animal names are not inherently color names unless otherwise indicated by a dictionary. Most don't sound like colors either. Many don't make us think of a color either. Yes. A lion is yellow brown... but that's not what we think when we hear the word lion.

You know why certain animals are associated with colors and others aren't? The color animals really don't have much else going for them. The color is how they stand out. Cardinal = red. Canary = yellow. Raven/Crow = black. Dove = white. Flamingo = pink. Albatross = white. Mallard = green.

Animals like lions and tigers and bears and wolves are more strongly associated with power and aggressiveness.