I know that site. The argument that the
relation between sound and meaning is _in principle_ non-arbitrary is specious
and easily falsifiable. Just look at a page of text in a language you know
nothing about (e.g. Mari, Arrernte, Burushaski or Navaho) and try to guess the
meaning, even approximately (assuming that the text does not contain familiar
loanwords). The experiment proposed by the site owner is so hopelessly
subjective that it's sure to be "successful", but what of that? To go over the
top like that means to throw the baby out with the bath water: interesting
ideas degenerate into a monomaniacal idée fixe. If the author were right,
historical linguistics would be impossible, since it's precisely where the
sound-meaning association is non-arbitary that we can expect words to develop in
aberrant ways (so that the association can be maintained).
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 1:55 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: lat. barbatus
For the 'ba' theme (what is the correct technical word?)
the site http://www.conknet.com/~mmagnus/ on
phonosemantics may be useful background. That site considers single
phonemes, rather than groups, but the principle is the
same.