Respected Mr. Malfet
Phonosemantics says that every sound has specific meaning assigned by nature. But it never says that every word has specific meaning. It is to be understood that the words are not the true representation of any object. Out of infinite identifications of the object, we select some of them, convert them into vocal gestures and speak out with air. The flow of multiple vocal gestures forms a word. In this way the word has incomplete identification of the object. The object having infinite number of identifications cannot be described within incomplete identifications. For example take a word ‘father’. Father is person; male; can be animal or human; has a biological, psychological, and intellectual entity; has more power relative to female; approves, protects and restricts the children; provides liveliness to the children; provides half of his DNA to the children. We can have a long list expressing properties of father. In Chinese we call /pa/ for father. The semantic value of this /pa/ is “the entity providing approval”. They have selected only one property out of infinite properties. You can explain as why in China father is called /pa/. But you cannot say that the meaning /pa/ is always ‘father’. Any entity which provides approval to anything will be called /pa/. We have long list of entities that provide approval, protection, and bond to any other entity (living and non-living). This list can have many names including elder brother, mother, police, door, arms, cloths, doctor, advocate, night, 100, watchman, medicine, warheads, ....etc
In this way we cannot make out the entity by its name (composition of phonemes). We can only explain as why the Chinese says /pa/ to father. We cannot say that translation of /pa/ is father.
We have infinite number of images in universe. Nature devises these infinite numbers into finite number of groups. Nature assigns specific phonemes to each group. Once the image is converted into phoneme; it loses its original existence. While reconverting the phoneme into the image, it can represent the properties of its group only, not its original property. Hence the word itself cannot express the originating image of the object.
If you ask me to define any name. It seems still difficult. For example a word /komba/ can be defined like this- Entity of + adjective of /m/ + noun of /b/ + adjective of /o/ + noun of /k/. The semantic values of /m/, /b/, /o/, and /k/ are to be taken from chapter no 5 of the paper. I think there will be no fruitful result will come out. All /m/, /b/, /o/, and /k/ have large number of images. The selection of the image can only be done if you already know the meaning of the word.