3. Using as much space as you need, explain your own views on attempts to preserve the Yucatec Maya language. (2 points)
4. Berlin and Kay argue (1 point):
(A) that your perception of color appears to depend entirely on the language you speak
(B) that, regardless of language, we human beings are naturally drawn to certain areas on the color continuum (the “reddest” red, for example)
(C) that their cross-cultural research on “basic color terms” provides solid proof that the “Strong Whorf” view of linguistic relativity is right
5. What does the Hanunóo case tell us about the domain we call “color”? (1 point)
(A) that our idea of what “counts” as a “color” does not seem to be universal
(B) that language may “cut up” the world differently, but the really important domains (“color”, “kinship”, “plants”) will always have the same boundaries
(C) that “dryness” and “freshness” has nothing to do with Hanunóo ideas about “color”
6. What does Yucatec Maya grammer do to santos? (1 point)
(A) When counting, you can’t refer to a wooden or stone santo as an animate (“living”) thing, but you can refer to a painting of, say, the Virgin Mary as animate
(B) Because stones cannot move, all stones, including stones regarded by the Maya as santos, must be treated as inanimate (“non-living”) things when counting
(C) All santos must be treated as animate (“living”) things when counting, even if they are made of stone, wood, or some other substance
7. Why is the Tahitian word for “sadness” particularly interesting? (1 point)
