I'm looking for someone else who had deduced the meaning, value, of each phoneme and letter, and who is also able to guess the meaning of an unknown word, of an unknown language, only by merging the meanings of the phonemes or letters composing it.

I want to exchange knowledge on the subject in order to refine our capability.

I'm not here to discuss whether or not this is possible.

I've had a tiny bit of success. A lot of the time a word like "tititi" refers to something small, and "bububu" refers to something big. Also "pa" or something like that often means "no" and "yeeee" means "yes". Usually I have to rely on knowing "Oh, that's from Arabic". And for the record, I don't know of any language where dogs are called "woof". "Bu", certainly.

A nifty test (which can be performed if you have a captive audience of undergraduates in an intro linguistics class) is to present them with random words in languages that they almost certainly don't know, and see how good they are at guessing the meaning. Don't use Spanish, French, German, Chinese, Hindi... go for a mix of X!oo, Kurmanji, Mien, Kartvelian, Navaho.

I've had a tiny bit of success. A lot of the time a word like "tititi" refers to something small, and "bububu" refers to something big. Also "pa" or something like that often means "no" and "yeeee" means "yes". Usually I have to rely on knowing "Oh, that's from Arabic". And for the record, I don't know of any language where dogs are called "woof". "Bu", certainly.

A nifty test (which can be performed if you have a captive audience of undergraduates in an intro linguistics class) is to present them with random words in languages that they almost certainly don't know, and see how good they are at guessing the meaning. Don't use Spanish, French, German, Chinese, Hindi... go for a mix of X!oo, Kurmanji, Mien, Kartvelian, Navaho.

Yes. Sound, as a communication system, is not as arbitrary as retarded people want to believe (no irrational offense intended, simply calling things by their names, I believe a linguist forum must promote the best usage of accurate terms). This goes beyond "tititi" or "pa". Think about the 'u' sound as in "tool". Listen to it alone, look for its greatest particularity, and you'll find it is "depth". Anywhere you find this sound, in natural languages, it means "depth". Depth, deep, deepening, interior. This is a definition of what that sound transmits. To any human. To any animal. Physically. That's what that sound provokes. It is its form. Who took care of using it as a "depth" value in languages? It's done naturally, mostly by kids.

Thank you for your answer.

I do agree with Panini that there are some tendencies for interpretation. These DO NOT DETERMINE the vocabulary of English, etc. So if you want to figure out what interpretations people have for sounds, that's a valid inquiry. It won't determine what the vocabulary of English or any other language means, though.

--

As for the rest, please keep it friendly

I asked about your IQ, so you can stop pretending to have the height enough to discuss things like this. You should be picking up bananas, or some slave job.

I said I wasn't here to discuss the existence of it. I have no doubts about your incapacity to comprehend this. No doubts at all. You are a homosapiens, I'm a homosapiens sapiens. I would be mentally ill if I was thinking that you could comprehend this.

Please abandon a forum about a topic way out of your capacities, or ban me. Be my guest, I'm not up for these ridiculous interactions with pretenders.