Why do we call it "stain"?
"A soiled or discolored appearance", reads one definition. Surely this is not our intent.
"To bring into disrepute, taint or tarnish", is another. Certainly not that!
"A blemish on one's moral character or reputation", oh my!
"To soil with foreign matter", shameful!
It leads one to believe that the definitional progenitors speak only of the application of foul substances to freshly prepared cherry, in which case they might have the right of it, whilst not solving for all instances and intents.
We must needs rehabilitate this terminology. We must prescind from its unfortunate linguistic antecedents and embrace a more felicitous phraseology.
One might initially and reflexively suggest the use of, "Color", although that smacks of what the brethren at Crayola are up to.
Then again, "Enhance" might fill the bill, but it is so ensnared in the current trend involving the ballooning of lips and breasts, to the point of cartoonish excess, that one would not wish to be so associated with the term.
"Fake", certainly describes the intent, albeit not the intention of the effect of the affect (or, if that the affect of the effect?). I would suggest the use of "Faux", but that would be a misdirection through indirection.
Well, we are obviously in a quagmire whichever way we turn on this. It might be best to let the wood speak for itself and not involve ourselves in the nasty propinquity of dissimilitude and verisimilitude.
Well, that's about it.
I haven't the slightest idea of how to solve this problem and leave the floor open to my bettors.
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)