Author Topic: Can someone else, here, add phoneme/letters meaning to guess words in languages?  (Read 461 times)

Offline tomasseeber

  • New Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 4
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.

Online Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 1664
  • Country: us
    • English
The funny thing is that aside from this not being possible*, those who think it is possible have very different interpretations.

There have been various phonosemantic theories proposed on this forum. Feel free to look through them to see if you find the "real answer".

[*For real languages. It isn't hard for me to imagine some non-arbitrary associations of sounds, though not with specific meanings, for new unknown words, but that is obviously, unquestionably overridden by our conventional knowledge of a given language. Otherwise dogs in every language would be named "woof" or something like that-- it wouldn't vary.]
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline panini

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
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.

Offline tomasseeber

  • New Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 4
The funny thing is that aside from this not being possible*, those who think it is possible have very different interpretations.

There have been various phonosemantic theories proposed on this forum. Feel free to look through them to see if you find the "real answer".

[*For real languages. It isn't hard for me to imagine some non-arbitrary associations of sounds, though not with specific meanings, for new unknown words, but that is obviously, unquestionably overridden by our conventional knowledge of a given language. Otherwise dogs in every language would be named "woof" or something like that-- it wouldn't vary.]

What's your IQ? (strength to assess reality)

Offline tomasseeber

  • New Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 4
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.

Online Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 1664
  • Country: us
    • English
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 :)
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline tomasseeber

  • New Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 4
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.

Online Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 1664
  • Country: us
    • English
Last warning: if you say anything like that again, you will be banned. That's not appropriate, anywhere, not even for a child.

Address my question above: why do proposals of phonosemantics have such different interpretations? If there is something real to be discovered, why not consistency? Are they all right? All wrong? Or only one, and in that case, which one and why?

If you're just too smart for this forum, go away. If you are here to discuss things, please discuss. Discuss that question.
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.