Well, it’s an interesting debate. IS there a relationship between linguistic choices and perception?
The Sapir Whorf hypothesis is a tempting one; the oft-repeated “Eskimo’s with 21 words for snow” of course neglects that whether you have single words or phrases like we do in English, it’s usually possible to describe most things in most languages pretty effectively, given a bit of creativity and cultural background.
In short, our ancestors saw blue. Of course they did.
Did they give it a special name “Blue”? Probably not. They still saw it though.
Now a WEAK form of Sapir Whorf _is_ possible. A very weak one. Words can ‘backinfluence’ us ONCE we’ve been culturally acclimated. Changing language used DOES have an impact once you’ve learned the base language.
In short, being sensitive by saying, “african american” instead of “nigger” makes a difference in your perception – mostly because they’re DIFFERENT words; the implied hatred does not carry with african american as it does with nigger. They’re actually distinct conceptually.
Metaphor choices are especially important for comprehension and… for misleading people, either on purpose or accidentally.
Will the colors make a difference? Maybe a little. If kids could invent their own names for colors, it would certainly be more interesting.
Will it change the ways their brains are wired? Well, it’ll change how they describe things, so perhaps somewhat. But whether I call an orange orange or call it “yellow-red”, the ‘gist’ is still conveyed.
PS – Byzantine Greeks had an amazing purplish color that can’t currently be duplicated but it’s been described. I suspect it’s akin to an ultramarine blue honestly, but that’s one of those ongoing half-myth/might-be-true things that keeps floating around.