# She has a light shoe color. & She has the shoe color light.



## loviii

Good day!

My examples:
*(1)* _She *is* a light shoe color_. = Her color shade is as light as shoes.
*(2)* _She *has* a light shoe color_. = She has shoes with a light shade.
*(3)* _She *has* the shoe color light_. = She has light shoes.

Am I right and if not, then why?

Thanks!


----------



## Uncle Jack

What are you trying to say?

Shoes come in all shades, and there is not a "shoe colour" in English. If you want to say what colour her shoes actually are, then you would say "her shoes are light in colour". You need to add "in colour" ( or use something like "a light shade") because "light" could refer to weight.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

_



			She *is* a light shoe color
		
Click to expand...

_


> . = Her color shade is as light as shoes.



This sounds as if you are comparing the colour of somebody's skin to 'light-coloured shoes'.
We don't usually compare skin tone with any sort of footwear. 'Light-coloured' could mean pale blue or grey or any pastel colour.
_"She *is* a light shoe color_" is meaningless.


----------



## loviii

Uncle Jack said:


> there is not a "shoe colour" in English.


a shoe size = a size of shoes
a shoe colour = a colour of shoes

Aren't these phrases analogous to each other? If the first is correct, why is the second not?

Thanks!


----------



## sound shift

loviii said:


> a shoe size = a size of shoes
> a shoe colour = a colour of shoes
> 
> Aren't these phrases analogous to each other? If the first is correct, why is the second not?


You seem to be implying that the second one should be correct, but there is no "should" about language: languages are not invented in a laboratory, scientifically. How do we explain why an expression is not correct? The only explanation is: "Because we don't say that."


----------



## Uncle Jack

I meant that there is not a colour known as "shoe colour" in English.

I cannot think why you might use "shoe colour" to mean the colour of a pair of shoes; "Shoe size" is widely used as a measure of the size of someone's feet and you can say that someone's shoe size is 10, 44 or whatever, depending on which shoe size system you are using, but to say that someone's shoe colour was dark brown would suggest that all their shoes were this colour; this was the only colour of shoe that they bought or wore, which in most situations would be absurd.


----------



## JulianStuart

loviii said:


> a shoe size = a size of shoes
> a shoe colour = a colour of shoes
> 
> Aren't these phrases analogous to each other? If the first is correct, why is the second not?
> 
> Thanks!


When you say "Her shoe size is six" you describe a property of the person not the shoes.
When you say "Her shoe colour is brown" you are describing the colour of the shoes (she is currently wearing). So no, they are not analogous  (unless you are assuming, but not telling us, the context that she always wears the same colour shoes - that is not something a typical listener might contemplate when hearing the sentence!)

Cross-posted identifying the same "absurdity"


----------



## loviii

Uncle Jack said:


> there is not a "shoe colour" in English.





sound shift said:


> loviii said:
> 
> 
> 
> a shoe size = a size of shoes
> a shoe colour = a colour of shoes
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be implying that the second one should be correct, but there is no "should" about language
Click to expand...


You wrote that there is not a "shoe colour" in English, but in the next thread I found the opposite opinion:



Biffo said:


> eli7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your shoe color?
> 
> 
> 
> "What is your shoe-colour?" is correct for one shoe or for a pair of shoes (provided they have the same colour)
> 
> This is an example of an adjectival noun.
> A noun that functions as an adjective can be called an _adjectival noun in English (e.g. Fowler [1]), but it is nowadays more often called a noun adjunct or attributive noun._
> Adjectival noun - Wikipedia
Click to expand...




Biffo said:


> My favourite shoe colour is brown.


Could you explain to me why another member wrote all the other way round?

Thanks!

_<Off-topic comment removed by moderator (Florentia52)>_


----------



## JulianStuart

loviii said:


> Could you explain to me why another member wrote all the other way round?


Context - you asked in #4 if the two concepts were analogous _but provided no context_. The answers you are looking at are discussing the conepet in DIFFERENT contexts.  What might be true in one context my not be true in another.  THAT's wh you get different rresponses.

As you will have read when you read the first post in the forum ( Please READ this before you post: English Only Guidelines — forum rules. )



> English words and phrases can have many different meanings. *Understanding them depends on where, when and how they are used.* When you post a question, please include as much background information and context as you can.


----------



## Myridon

loviii said:


> Could you explain to me why another member wrote all the other way round?


Sometimes we will discuss an unnatural usage for a while due to other grammar points surrounding it.  You'll notice in that thread that none of the other posters reply to the "shoe-color" sub-topic in that thread (they stick to the original question about trousers) and by post #28 even biffo has changed to "the color (of my shoes)".


----------



## lingobingo

loviii said:


> *(1)* _She *is* a light shoe color_. = Her color shade is as light as shoes.
> *(2)* _She *has* a light shoe color_. = She has shoes with a light shade.
> *(3)* _She *has* the shoe color light_. = She has light shoes.


To put it bluntly, not one of those examples is even remotely idiomatic. People don’t “have” a particular shoe colour that they always wear, but they do “have” a shoe size — the one that matches the size of their feet.


----------



## Myridon

Additionally, "light" is just a category of color so the "the" in 3 makes no sense as there is no "the color light". We can say "the color red" as red is onle color, but "a light color" could be light "any color" - light red (pink), light blue, light yellow, light brown (tan, ecru, ...), white, grey, ...


----------



## loviii

Uncle Jack said:


> there is not a colour known as "shoe colour" in English.





lingobingo said:


> not one of those examples is even remotely idiomatic. People don’t “have” a particular shoe colour that they always wear


If we replace the inappropriate collocation "_a shoe colour_" with the collocation "_a colour of shoes_", then will it be correct?:
*(4) *_She has a light colour of shoes_. = She has shoes with a light colour.
*(5)* _She has the colour red of shoes_. = She has red shoes.

Thanks!


----------



## lingobingo

Those are just as nonsensical. If you mean she’s *wearing* red shoes, you must say so.


----------



## loviii

Uncle Jack said:


> to say that someone's shoe colour was dark brown would suggest that all their shoes were this colour; this was the only colour of shoe that they bought or wore, which in most situations would be absurd.


Based on this explanation, I think I can use "_a shoe color_" and "_a color of shoes_" with the verb "_like_":
_She likes a red shoe color_. = _She likes a red color of shoes_.
_She likes the color red of shoes_.

These sentences are correct, right?

Thanks!


----------



## Uncle Jack

Why on earth would you use such an awkward expression? "She likes red shoes" would suit most circumstances.


----------



## Myridon

loviii said:


> Based on this explanation, I think I can use "_a shoe color_" and "_a color of shoes_" with the verb "_like_":
> _She likes a red shoe color_. = _She likes a red color of shoes_.
> _She likes the color red of shoes_.


She likes a red shoe color.   This sounds like "red shoe" is a specific color.  She likes a robin's egg color.  (She likes the color called "robin's egg (blue)".
She likes a red color of shoes. 
She likes the color red of shoes.   She likes the color red of cardinals. Cardinals (the birds) are a specific color of red so this is again like there's a color of red that is specifically found in shoes like the first sentence.


----------



## loviii

Myridon said:


> She likes a red shoe color.  [...] She likes a robin's egg color. [...]
> She likes a red color of shoes.
> She likes the color red of shoes.  She likes the color red of cardinals.


Why did you write the red cross? Can't we say about it the same way:
She likes a red color of shoes.  She likes a red color of a robin's egg.

Thanks!


----------



## Myridon

loviii said:


> Why did you write the red cross? Can't we say about it the same way:
> She likes a red color of shoes.  She likes a red color of a robin's egg.
> 
> Thanks!


Because it's wrong (and robin's eggs are blue.)
Robin egg blue - Wikipedia
*


*


----------



## loviii

As I  understand, "_shoe color_" is a phrase we shouldn't use anywhere.

But we can't say the same about the phrase "_color of shoes_". We shouldn't use "_color of shoes_" here:
_She has/likes a red color of shoes_. - incorrect
But, then, why can we use it here?:
_Her color of shoes is red_.

Thanks!


----------



## Uncle Jack

loviii said:


> As I understand, "_shoe color_" is a phrase we shouldn't use anywhere.


Of course you can use "shoe colour", but you haven't yet given a plausible sentence and situation in which you would say it.



loviii said:


> But we can't say the same about the phrase "_color of shoes_". We shouldn't use "_color of shoes_" here:
> _She has/likes a red color of shoes_. - incorrect


No, what purpose does the word "colour" serve? "She likes red shoes" is all that is needed. Adding "colour" adds no meaning and just makes the sentence unnatural.


loviii said:


> But, then, why can we use it here?:
> _Her color of shoes is red_.


The same goes for this. Her shoes are red. There is no need for the word "colour" at all.

Use the word "colour" when you don't name the colour.
What are the colour of her shoes?​
When a thing isn't only or primarily the name of a colour, such as a robin's egg, then it is common to add the word "colour" to it ("a robin's egg colour") when you would normally just say the name of the colour ("red"). As I said in post #2, there isn't a colour called "shoe" in English (which would then be "shoe colour"), like there is a colour called "robin's egg".


----------



## loviii

Uncle Jack said:


> When a thing isn't only or primarily the name of a colour, such as a robin's egg, then it is common to add the word "colour" to it ("a robin's egg colour")


Could you tell me where I am right and where I am not:
_The color of her shoes is a robin's egg_. - incorrect
_The color of her shoes is a robin's egg color_. - correct
_The color of her shoes is like a robin's egg_. - correct
_The color of her shoes is like a robin's egg color_. -correct

Thanks!


----------



## Myridon

loviii said:


> Could you tell me where I am right and where I am not:
> _The color of her shoes is a robin's egg_. - incorrect
> _The color of her shoes is a robin's egg color_. - *The color of her shoes is robin's egg. or The color of her shoes is robin's egg blue.*
> _The color of her shoes is like a robin's egg_. - correct - *but not the same thing.*
> _The color of her shoes is like a robin's egg color_. - *in*correct
> 
> Thanks!


You are confusing the idea of "the color of a robin's egg", i.e. literally comparing the color of the shoes to the color of a robin's egg, and "the color (called) robin's egg" or "robin's egg blue".
We generally don't say "The color is ... color."

Just say:
Her shoes are robin's egg.
Her shoes are robin's egg blue.

You keep trying to use logic to create new forms of sentences like words and phrases are just Lego bricks. Language doesn't work like that.


----------



## Uncle Jack

Myridon said:


> Just say:
> Her shoes are robin's egg.
> Her shoes are robin's egg blue.


Or,
Her shoes are a robin's egg colour.​


----------



## loviii

Myridon said:


> _The color of her shoes is a robin's egg color_. - *The color of her shoes is robin's egg. or The color of her shoes is robin's egg blue.*


As I understand, "_robin_" is not a name as "_Robin_". Then, why did you take away "_a_" before "_robin_" and do the phrases "_robin's egg_" and "_robin's egg blue_" without any article?

Thanks!


----------



## Myridon

Uncle Jack said:


> Or,
> Her shoes are a robin's egg colour.​


If you think there's more than one robin's egg blue...


----------



## Myridon

loviii said:


> As I understand, "_robin_" is not a name as "_Robin_". Then, why did you take away "_a_" before "_robin_" and do the phrases "_robin's egg_" and "_robin's egg blue_" without any article?


The determiner goes with the noun. A ... blue. One of several many ... blues. There's no "a robin" or "an egg" in the phrase. I'm using "robin's egg" as a specific color, not a range of colors.  The shoes do not come in a continuous range of colors.  I would assume that there's only one color in the line that would say "robin's egg" on the shoebox.


----------



## loviii

Myridon said:


> Her shoes are robin's egg.


How can this sentence show that it relates to robin's egg color if there is not a word "color" or such words as "red/blue/..." We only have an egg where this egg is equal to shoes. Could you explain this strange thing?

Thanks!


----------



## Uncle Jack

Myridon said:


> If you think there's more than one robin's egg blue...


Well, you can see there is from the photograph in post #19.  

I would happily say "a cerulean blue colour" or "a shocking pink colour" where there isn't a laid down standard, even though both are well recognised shades, but I would not use "a" with a Pantone name or RAL number.


loviii said:


> How can this sentence show that it relates to robin's egg color if there is not a word "color" or such words as "red/blue/..."


What else could it be? Most people would guess that "robin's egg" is a colour, even if they haven't heard of it before, and it cannot be a brand name or a style since that would have to be plural for a pair of shoes.


----------



## loviii

As you said:
_She has a red color of shoes_. = All shoes she has are a red color.
_She has the color red of shoes_. = All shoes she has are the color red.
Since this is a strange situation, you consider these sentences incorrect.

Therefore, to make the sentences correct, we should introduce an extra information that will reduce a range from all her pairs to one or several concrete pairs. For example:
_She has a red color of the shoes she wears to make an impression_. = The shoes she wears to make an impression are a red color.
_She has the color red of the shoes she wears to make an impression_. = The shoes she wears to make an impression are the color red.

Is my logic right and if not, then why?
Are my two last examples correct?

Thanks!


----------



## lingobingo

You don’t seem to have grasped the fact that it’s totally unidiomatic to say either “she has a red colour” or “she has the color red” of anything.


----------



## heypresto

Keep it simple, and say the natural 'She wears/is wearing/has some _red shoes.'_ No need to mention 'colour'.


----------



## RM1(SS)

lingobingo said:


> You don’t seem to have grasped the fact that it’s totally unidiomatic to say either “she has a red colour” or “she has the color red” of anything.





heypresto said:


> Keep it simple, and say the natural 'She wears/is wearing/has some _red shoes.'_ No need to mention 'colour'.


----------



## loviii

As you said:
_Her color of shoes is red_. - incorrect

But, as I understand, if we put in "_a_", the sentence will become correct:
_Her color of shoes is *a* red_. = Her color of shoes is a red shade.
Am I right?

Thanks!


----------



## heypresto

No.

I suppose you could say 'The colour of her shoes is red', but again, why not just keep it simple and say the natural 'Her shoes are red', or any of the options I offered in post #32.


----------



## lingobingo

No. Still not what anyone ever says. 

Her shoes are red   ​= red is the colour of the shoes she is wearing ​​Her favourite shoe colour is red ​She only ever wears red shoes ​


----------



## loviii

If we can say:
_Her shoes are *a* red_. ( = _Her shoes are a red shade_.)
Then why can't we say:
_Her color of shoes is *a* red_. ( = _Her color of shoes is a red shade_.)
For me they are analogous to each other.

Thanks!


----------



## lingobingo

loviii said:


> If we can say:
> _Her shoes are *a* red_.


We can’t! 

We might say *they’re a red colour*, meaning a certain shade of red. But we do not say any of the strange things you wrongly assume to be natural extensions of idiomatic expressions.


----------



## Myridon

loviii said:


> If we can say:
> _Her shoes are *a* red_. ( = _Her shoes are a red shade_.)
> Then why can't we say:
> _Her color of shoes is *a* red_. ( = _Her color of shoes is a red shade_.)
> For me they are analogous to each other.
> 
> Thanks!


"Her shoes are red." is normal.  We don't care what exact shade of red they are - they're just red.
"Her shoes are a red." is unusual.  They are a specific color of red but I'm not going to tell you if they are ruby or carmine or ... even though I seem to know.
"Her color of shoes..." is wrong, wrong, wrong.  She doesn't have/own a color.
"Her favorite color of shoes is red." works.  A favorite color is something that you can have.
"Her favorite color of shoes is a red." is unusual.  Now we're back to the weirdness that there is a specific red that's the only one she likes, but it's a secret!


----------



## loviii

lingobingo said:


> We can’t!





Myridon said:


> "Her shoes are a red." is odd.


ell.stackexchange.com:
I see nothing incorrect about "_His hair is *a* light blue_." His hair is a specific blue, in this case a light blue. For example, here's someone saying that the Hope diamond glows *a* brilliant red, and here's a book saying that a particular flower is *a* deep blue.​
After this passage I was certain of the correctness of:
_Her shoes are *a* red_.
_The color of her shoes is *a* red_.
But you wrote they are wrong.

What's the difference between my sentences and ones above?

Thanks!


----------



## Uncle Jack

loviii said:


> What's the difference between my sentences and ones above?


Your sentences don't have an adjective describing the type of red the shoes are.


----------



## Myridon

"Odd" and "wrong" are not the same.  You can say things that are odd in odd circumstances (or if you want to sound odd which seems to be your goal ).


----------



## RM1(SS)

Myridon said:


> "Her color of shoes..." is wrong, wrong, wrong. She doesn't have/own a color.


  
Her color of shoes is red. 
Her shoes are red. 
The color of her shoes is red.


----------



## loviii

Uncle Jack said:


> Your sentences don't have an adjective describing the type of red the shoes are.


By this logic the next sentences are correct, right?
_The color of her shoes is *a* robin's egg blue_.
_Her shoes are *a* robin's egg blue_.

Thanks!


----------



## Uncle Jack

loviii said:


> By this logic the next sentences are correct, right?
> _The color of her shoes is *a* robin's egg blue_.
> _Her shoes are *a* robin's egg blue_.


They are fine. However, see posts #26 and #29, as this use depends on "robin's egg blue" covering a range of shades (although they may all be very close to each other).


----------



## Myridon

Uncle Jack said:


> They are fine. However, see posts #26 and #29, as this use depends on "robin's egg blue" covering a range of shades (although they may all be very close to each other).


The reason I introduced robin's egg blue into the thread was to get away from the complication of "*a* red" but _someone _insisted on dragging it into the muddy waters of "*a* robin's egg blue."


----------



## loviii

You said the articles are incorrect in the next sentences:
_Her shoes are *a* red_.
_The color of her shoes is *a* red_.
Because:


Uncle Jack said:


> Your sentences don't have an adjective describing the type of red the shoes are.


oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com:
_*the* reds and browns of the woods in the fall_

This phrase also doesn't have an adjective describing the type of red the woods are but still has the article "_the_" before "_reds_". Why is it not appropriate for your formulation?

Thanks!


----------



## Uncle Jack

loviii said:


> This phrase also doesn't an adjective describing the type of red the woods are but still has the article "_the_". Why is it not appropriate for your formulation?


What on earth has this got to do with your sentences? There are many reasons for using articles, and just because the definite article is used in one situation with a word does not mean that the indefinite article can be used in a different situation.


----------



## loviii

As you said, the next sentences are correct:
_The color of her shoes *is* a red color_.
_The color of her shoes *is* a robin's egg color_.
_The color of her shoes *is* a robin's egg blue_.

Replace "_is_" with "_has_":
_The color of her shoes *has* a red color_.
_The color of her shoes *has* a robin's egg color_.
_The color of her shoes *has* a robin's egg blue_.

The last three sentences are correct too, right?

Thanks!


----------



## heypresto

No. The _shoes _might have a colour, but a _colour _can't have a colour.


----------



## loviii

heypresto said:


> a _colour _can't have a colour


I was told in this thread that the next sentences are correct:
_This red has a pink shade_.
_This color red has a pink shade_.

Why, then, are the sentences below not correct?:
_The color of her shoes has a red color_.
_The color of her shoes has a robin's egg color_.
_The color of her shoes has a robin's egg blue_.

Thanks!


----------



## JulianStuart

loviii said:


> I was told in this thread that the next sentences are correct:
> _This red has a pink shade_.
> _This color red has a pink shade_.
> 
> Why, then, are the sentences below not correct?:
> _The color of her shoes has a red color_.
> _The color of her shoes has a robin's egg color_.
> _The color of her shoes has a robin's egg blue_.
> 
> Thanks!


You keep changing contexts/meanings but wanting to use the same structure!  Colour and shade are different. A colour can have a shade (or different shades etc) but a colour can't have a colour.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

The only one of the sentences in #49 that's acceptable is

_The color of her shoes *is* a robin's egg blue_.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

We don't talk about 'pink shades of red' anyway. Pink is a colour in its own right.


----------



## loviii

I thought up two sentences:
_The color of her shoes is a blue of a robin's egg_.
_The color of her shoes is the blue of a robin's egg_.
Are they correct?

If the answer is "yes", then are the next equations right:
_The color of her shoes is a blue of a robin's egg_. = _The color of her shoes is a robin's egg blue_.
_The color of her shoes is the blue of a robin's egg_. = _The color of her shoes is robin's egg blue_.

Thanks!


----------



## RM1(SS)

heypresto said:


> No. The _shoes _might have a colour, but a _colour _can't have a colour.


 


loviii said:


> I thought up two sentences:
> _The color of her shoes is a blue of a robin's egg_.
> _The color of her shoes is the blue of a robin's egg_.
> Are they correct?
> 
> If the answer is "yes", then are the next equations right:
> _The color of her shoes is a blue of a robin's egg_. = _The color of her shoes is a robin's egg blue_.
> _The color of her shoes is the blue of a robin's egg_. = _The color of her shoes is robin's egg blue_.
> 
> Thanks!


The two sentences with "the blue" are good.  I don't like the ones with "a blue", but others might.


----------



## loviii

Myridon said:


> "Her color of shoes..." is wrong, wrong, wrong. She doesn't have/own a color.
> "Her favorite color of shoes is red." works. A favorite color is something that you can have.


You wrote "_her color of shoes_" is wrong.
Could you tell me whether it's correct to say "_her size of shoes_"?

Thanks!


----------



## heypresto

Probably not. Do you have a _complete sentence_ in mind?


----------



## loviii

heypresto said:


> Probably not. Do you have a _complete sentence_ in mind?


I'm not good at examples. Maybe these ones:
_Her size of shoes is six_.
_Her size of shoes is smaller than his_.
_Her size of shoes also fits her daughter_.
_Her size of shoes depends on whether her legs swelled up or not_.

What could you say about the correctness of using "_her size of shoes_" here?

Thanks!


----------



## RM1(SS)

Use "her shoe size" in all of those.


----------



## Uncle Jack

Even "her shoe size" isn't necessarily correct, and does not fit all the examples. Someone's "shoe size" refers to the size of their feet, and does not usually refer to the size of a pair of shoes. If you want to refer to the shoes:
_Her shoes are (a) size six_.​_Her shoes are smaller than his_.​_Her shoes also fit her daughter_.​_The size of shoes she wears depends on whether her legs are swollen up or not_.​"Size of shoes" works well in the last, but not in the other three (although "shoe size", referring to the size of her feet, would be better). There is very rarely any cause to refer to the category of thing you want to describe (size or colour, for example), if the sentence makes it clear this is what you are referring to.


----------

