Phonosemantics

[mallu]

I can tell you the colour of any word in the world.  Give me any word - I'll tell you its colour! But it's completely random and arbitrary and depends on my subjective feeling about the word; and my methods have no predictive value and don't actually 'mean' anything in real life.

"phonosemantics" - a dull yellowish green

This is what I am hearing.

So what is the point of your argument? Sorry to be blunt,a theory not built on any evidence and without any predictive power cannot be called a scientific theory.
Had it been built on facts and evidences using scientific method the theory would have been useful,even if it lacks any predictive power.

But here it seems that you arbitrarily assumes some sort of rules related to the semantics of the languages and present it as a science.So don't hope  it would get acceptance in Linguistic community.I suggest you to re-examine your theory using accepted methods of scientific inquiry and decide whether your theory is defendable scientifically.

[freknu]

[Pramod Kumar Agrawal]

I can tell you the colour of any word in the world.  Give me any word - I'll tell you its colour! But it's completely random and arbitrary and depends on my subjective feeling about the word; and my methods have no predictive value and don't actually 'mean' anything in real life.

So you acknowledge that you will have different feeling for different words. I give you two words /nǝ/ and /mǝ/. Will you have same feeing for both. Why there is a difference in feeling if sounds have no association with meanings.

Isn't an army or soldier or bomb a better example of something that protects something with alertness? Why are these not pronounced as "bank"?

Just for word game, why don't you try the word 'bunker' =  /bʌŋkər/ = Involvement /r/of alive consciousness /ŋkə/of evolved protection /bʌ/.

So what is the point of your argument? Sorry to be blunt,a theory not built on any evidence and without any predictive power cannot be called a scientific theory.
Had it been built on facts and evidences using scientific method the theory would have been useful,even if it lacks any predictive power.
But here it seems that you arbitrarily assumes some sort of rules related to the semantics of the languages and present it as a science.So don't hope  it would get acceptance in Linguistic community.I suggest you to re-examine your theory using accepted methods of scientific inquiry and decide whether your theory is defendable scientifically.

I have many times requested that my theory simply predicts the semantic values of sounds NOT of words. Our listening process starts from physical sound, converts into biological electric impulse, converts into psychological feelings and at last intellectual mind read these feelings in intellectual format. Now the phonosemantics lies in between biological mind and the psychological mind. The sounds are converted into feelings. Different types of sounds convert into different types of feelings. And every sound has specific feeling. And I have predicted these feelings. I do not think that there is any thing which is not scientific.
Now two questions arrive. One is method of prediction and second is correctness of predictions. These two things can be discussed only if the definition of  phonosemantics is acceptable.

[Corybobory]

I can tell you the colour of any word in the world.  Give me any word - I'll tell you its colour! But it's completely random and arbitrary and depends on my subjective feeling about the word; and my methods have no predictive value and don't actually 'mean' anything in real life.

"phonosemantics" - a dull yellowish green

This is what I am hearing.

So what is the point of your argument? Sorry to be blunt,a theory not built on any evidence and without any predictive power cannot be called a scientific theory.
Had it been built on facts and evidences using scientific method the theory would have been useful,even if it lacks any predictive power.

But here it seems that you arbitrarily assumes some sort of rules related to the semantics of the languages and present it as a science.So don't hope  it would get acceptance in Linguistic community.I suggest you to re-examine your theory using accepted methods of scientific inquiry and decide whether your theory is defendable scientifically.

Ohhhhh!  I get it.  I see, my idea was totally flawed... I see where it went wrong now. Totally bogus.  Got it. Thanks!

PS It might not be accepted by the scientific community, but it might get accepted to that journal...

[Pramod Kumar Agrawal]

But here it seems that you arbitrarily assumes some sort of rules related to the semantics of the languages and present it as a science.So don't hope  it would get acceptance in Linguistic community.I suggest you to re-examine your theory using accepted methods of scientific inquiry and decide whether your theory is defendable scientifically.

My theory is scientifically correct or not is a secondary issue. Primary issue is that whether the different sounds give the different feeling or not. If you are not agreeing on this primary issue, there is no fun to discuss the science behind it. Discussion is always fruitful if you move step by step.

[freknu]

[Whether] my theory is scientifically correct or not is a secondary issue.

So very wrong. It is the primary issue.

If you are not agreeing on this primary issue, there is no fun to discuss the science behind it.

There is no science behind your hypothesis.

Discussion is always fruitful if you move step by step.

Eric Hovind would beg to differ.

[Pramod Kumar Agrawal]

[Whether] my theory is scientifically correct or not is a secondary issue.

So very wrong. It is the primary issue.

If you are not agreeing on this primary issue, there is no fun to discuss the science behind it.

There is no science behind your hypothesis.

Discussion is always fruitful if you move step by step.

Eric Hovind would beg to differ.

1. So you want to discuss the science of gravitation without accepting that an apple falls towards earth.
2. 'sound has a feeling' is not a hypothesis, it is a fact.
3. No comments.

[Daniel]

Let's discuss why language is actually a secret government conspiracy to make the population buy vegetables.

...you see, there's a good reason why theories are evaluated scientifically before and during discussion, rather than afterwards. Would you really want to take every idea seriously even if there is absolutely no scientific evidence/support whatsoever, including the crazy theory I just wrote above?

This is entirely backwards:

My theory is scientifically correct or not is a secondary issue. Primary issue is that whether the different sounds give the different feeling or not. If you are not agreeing on this primary issue, there is no fun to discuss the science behind it. Discussion is always fruitful if you move step by step.

[freknu]

1. So you want to discuss the science of gravitation without accepting that an apple falls towards earth.
2. 'sound has a feeling' is not a hypothesis, it is a fact.
3. No comments.

1. an apple falling due to gravity is a verifiable and testable phenomenon. Your claims are not. Besides, to put your claims on par with a falling apple is laughable, your claims are more akin to an apple falling upwards.

2. "sound has feeling" is not scientific.

3. your loss.

[Pramod Kumar Agrawal]

1. So you want to discuss the science of gravitation without accepting that an apple falls towards earth.
2. 'sound has a feeling' is not a hypothesis, it is a fact.
3. No comments.

1. an apple falling due to gravity is a verifiable and testable phenomenon. Your claims are not. Besides, to put your claims on par with a falling apple is laughable, your claims are more akin to an apple falling upwards.

2. "sound has feeling" is not scientific.

3. your loss.

So how can one hear a sound without feel it?

[freknu]

So how can one hear a sound without feel it?

*facepalm*

If you have a great enough sound pressure you can physically feel the sound, and the hair cells responding to sound pressure is also physical sensation.

What you are talking about is arbitrary, psychological, emotional "feeling". Everything has "feeling", because as humans we give everything "feeling". These "feelings" are different for every individual. To try and forcibly wring this into a scientific theory is absolutely absurd.

[Pramod Kumar Agrawal]

...you see, there's a good reason why theories are evaluated scientifically before and during discussion, rather than afterwards. Would you really want to take every idea seriously even if there is absolutely no scientific evidence/support whatsoever, including the crazy theory I just wrote above?

I can understand it. There may be mistake in my English. But first of all we have to acknowledge that we can 'hear' a sound. When I say 'feel of sound', It is just for hearing (a physical feeling of sound), NOT for specific feeling for specific sound. When I will talk about the specific meanings of different sounds, that will be well supported by scientific reasoning.

[Daniel]

When I will talk about the specific meanings of different sounds, that will be well supported by scientific reasoning.

That is precisely the problem: no, it is not. Your reasoning is not scientific, as we have told you multiple times. Repeating a nonscientific argument does not make it more correct.

[zaba]

I said it before and I'll say it again: It's easy to debunk this idea. I'll give you a word in a language with which you are completely unfamiliar and you give me the "meaning" based on your analysis.

Ready? Here goes:

thixthintti

So, if you can give me even the SLIGHTEST idea of the meaning of this word, I'll reconsider everything and side with you.

[Pramod Kumar Agrawal]

When I will talk about the specific meanings of different sounds, that will be well supported by scientific reasoning.

That is precisely the problem: no, it is not. Your reasoning is not scientific, as we have told you multiple times. Repeating a nonscientific argument does not make it more correct.

I do not understand that what is unscientific in this statement.
Let us start again.
1. We are not deaf.
2. We can hear different sounds.
3. We can recognize different sounds.
4. We can memorize different sounds.
We are not talking about the human languages. I think ..... we do not need any scientific proof up till now.
5. Sound is a vocal gesture. (Animal interaction is a proof)
6. Gesture is made of identity (shape) of gesture and meaning of gesture.
7. Different sounds are made of different vocal gestures.
8. Hence different sounds have different meanings.
Still we are not talking about human languages. If you are not agree with these above 8 points please give me point no, and if you are agree, I will move further.