Does this mean that if I were introduced to more words for more nuanced colors I would literally see the world differently? That's amazing.

As I understand it, rather than certain languages having more words for more nuanced colors, in general most different language families simply break up colors along different places on the color spectrum. For example, I know there are many South American cultures that can't tell the difference at all between our blue and green, because the word they use for that color encompasses that whole area of the spectrum. On the other hand, they break up what we would call maybe just red and dark red into separate colors.

* Source: I'm feeling a bit too lazy to look up references, but I minored in linguistics (and, although I focused more on computer language, I did take a handful of more generalized linguistics classes).

Makes me think of how the eskimo's apparently have hundreds of words to describe snow. They must also see the world differently, no?

I had a professor whose specialty was American Indian linguistics who insisted that this isn't really true - that they really have about the same number of words for snow that we do in English. He said that their words for snow combined with adjectives (again, the same general adjectives that we would use) are often mistaken for single words.

He never really showed us any data or studies to back this up, so I'm not really sure. I'm mostly comfortable taking his word for it.