There are more than 350 fl owing waters in Poland with names containing a colour adjective. Etymological propositions mention sometimes various physical attributes such as the colour of the water or of the bottom, or even a possible symbolical usage connected e.g. with the cardinal directions, but most often they limit themselves to citing the literary version of the adjective, and there end their inquiry. The goal of the present paper is to establish to what degree physical attributes can explain the use of colour epithets; and if they cannot, then whether there is any reason to believe that there existed in the past a more elaborate system of colour symbolism.
The author presents the thesis that the referent of the dative noun phrase is ‘a second human participant’ of the event ‒ referent of the proposition in question. The same applies to the referent of the genitive noun phrase. The two constructions differ only in their syntactic distribution ‒ dative is an adverbal case, while genetive is adnominal, which is the result of their semantic roles ‒ ‘recipient’ for dative and ‘possessor’ for genetive.
In these remarks I do undertake one more time the attempt to answer the following question: what do agnostics really want? This issue is so complicated that even the agnostics themselves had great trouble in delivering the answer. This is also related to these agnostics, such as the recalled here Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, and Stephen W. Hawking, who belong to the greatest format of scholars. The agnostics are being distanced from, both the atheists and theists. However they do judge differently their views it is important that as well the first as the latter ones may appreciate what stands behind agnosticism and this might be very variable.