Mr. Lx
I agree that without an appropriate theory nothing can be explained. My purpose of insisting on a simple example was just to explain myself step by step. Now a question came out from your post.
“That the word 'it' at some level devolves down to something that occupies space and is visible? What about the hundreds of languages that have words to express the exact same thing?”
The theory suggests that you cannot find any word of “exact same thing”. For example: The Hindi translation of the word is /jǝhǝ/. The semantic value of /jǝhǝ/ is “physical existent /hǝ/ of visible existence /jǝ/” (physically visible). The semantic value of /lo/ (Spanish) is “in the direction /o/ of expanded appearance /l/”. In this way you can see that the practical meaning of the word ‘it’ is the same, but phonosemantic meanings are different. Even if the words are different, they are indicating the same image. In English ‘occupation’ is important, in Spanish ‘appearance’ is important, and in Hindi ‘physical’ is important. The importance is depends on the environment and social values of the country.
We can take one more example. The psychological meaning of ‘father’ is “the person who provides approval / security with condition or without any condition”.
(1) Chinese [fuxin] /fʊʃɪn/ - accepting unconditional approval /fʊ/ psychological strength /ʃ/ towards /ɪ/ act /n/ {act towards psychological strength of encouragement (acceptance with unconditional approval)}.
(2) English [father] /fɑ:ðər/ - unconditionally approvable entity /fɑ:/ submission /ðə/ involvement /r/ {involvement in submission of encouragement (unconditionally approvable entity) }.
(3) French [père] /pɛʀ/ - approval with conditions (bonding / protecting) /p/ visibly available /ɛ/ involvement /ʀ/ {involvement in visibly available approval with conditions (bonding/protecting)}.
(4) German [vater] /fatər/ - unconditionally approvable entity /fa/ activating /tə/ involvement /r/ {involvement in activating the encouragement (unconditionally approvable entity }.
(5) Hindi [pitā] /pɪt̪ɑ/ - towards conditional approval /pɪ/ offering entity /t̪ɑ/ {offering entity towards conditional courage (approval)}.
(6) Italian and Spanish [padre] /padre/ - conditionally approvable entity /pa/ specific submission involvement /dre/ {specific submission involvement in conditionally encouragement (approvable entity)}.
(7) Japanese [chichi] /ʧɪʧɪ/ - liveliness /ʧ/ towards /ɪ/ liveliness /ʧ/ towards /ɪ/ {towards adding liveliness regularly; providing liveliness to the child}.
This phenomenon can be understood by considering two different objects each having 100 different parameters for their naming. Now an observer cannot observe all parameters. There are within three possibilities.
(1) If he perceives the common parameters from both of them, he can give them same name. (Same name for different objects)
(2) If he perceives different parameters from both of them, he can give them different names. (Different names for different objects)
(3) If he perceives the different parameters form a same object, he can give different names to same object. This possibility relates to the above example.
The basic theme of the theory is that nature assigns specific semantic values to different phonemes. But nature NEVER assigns any name to any object. Because every object contains infinite number of parameters, these cannot be converted into name. It is the observer who observes the image, and perceives it by filtering out his physical, biological, psychological, and intellectual needs and availabilities. Out of the filtered image he selects a minimum possible name under phonosemantics. A lot of confusion is created because the process of developing ‘words’ was taken place before 70000-100000 years from today. Although there are lot of changes in the original words, but these changes are took place within a specified limit (same group of sounds; refer groups in the theory; refer Grimm’s Law). And this changing has taken place because of change in physical, biological, psychological, and intellectual needs and availabilities.
As regards the ‘numbering’ is concerned, I am still in confusion.