I find phonemes to possess semantic features which each language  choosesfrom to form words

Mr. jerryoverlock
Please explain in detail.

Phonosemantics is not an unknown subject. We have a number of philosophers like Panini (400BC), Socrates (500BS), Hermogenes, and Plato (stated that the letter ‘L’ symbolizes softness), who gave their view for the subject. In the modern age, we have  John Wallis (1653), John Locke (1689),  Gottfried Wilhem Leibniz,  Charles de Brosses (1765), Antoine Court de Gébelin (1775),  Charles Nodier (1808), Dwight Bolinger (1949), Ivan Fónagy (1963),  Hans Marchand  and Margaret Magnus (2001) are some of the important philosophers who have done a lot of work in the field.
Most of the work has been done on phonesthemes, phonosemantic matching, and correlation between different languages. There was a wide difference between philosophers. Even after the long discussions, the fight between ‘natural’ and ‘arbitrary’ could not be concluded. There was a basic drawback in the discussion. They all had tried to correlate the object and the sound. This was an impossible task. Our hypothesis suggests a bridge in between the sound and the object. This bridge is a platform for ‘psychological perception’. Without psychological perception nothing can be perceived or expressed. The platform provides defined places for different sentiments as well as different sounds. And we have inter-converted the sentiments and the sounds. The conversion of visuals into sentiments into sound depends on the observer to observer.
The hypothesis is a result of root natural reasoning. The model suggested in the hypothesis quite resembles with the ‘model of existence’ explained in ancient Indian literature. It is a new innovative hypothesis for modern psycholinguists, and hence it is difficult to find any research relating to the above hypothesis.

1. There is a difference between /ɒftən/ and /ɒfən/. The additional ‘t’ in the word indicates an additional impression of activation/presence in the psychological feelings evolved due to the pronunciation of ‘often’. /ɒfən/ denotes the ‘unaware frequent act’, but /ɒftən/ denotes the ‘aware frequent act’. First one is a casual act, and the second one is ‘knowingly’ act. Therefore, it is wrong to say that “there is no difference in psychological attitude”. The ‘knowingly’ provokes an attitude of awareness as well as confidence. This attitude is reflected in our body gesture. As regards the ‘body language’ is concerned, the ‘slow down’ of the speech conveys the psychological expression of awareness and confidence.
2. There is a difference between /græf/, /grɑf/, and /ɡrɑːf/. /æ/ (visibility) denotes logical aspects of the information (/gr/ - clarifying involvement) in the graph. /ɑ/ (entity) denotes established aspects of the in the graph. /ɑː/ (by the entity) denotes that the operating aspects of the information in the graph. In this way, the same word has three different pronunciations have three different meanings.
As on today, we are not evolving a language. We are just learning the evolved languages. Please keep the things in mind that the formation of the words has a long history of around 70000 years. All psychological perceptions are based on the prevailing environmental conditions and social values. Words were continuously changed according to the changed conditions. After the phenomenon of ‘writing’ come into existence, the pronunciations were frozen. Due to the fixation of pronunciations, even we have faced a lot environmental changes and cultural migrations; the changes in pronunciation are very little.
The theory believes that all the languages in the world are small segments of a basic universal language. Hence acquiring a word from another language is just natural and scientific; Hindi has imported many English, Sindhi, Urdu, words, which are now treated as a part of Hindi only. As regards your question about the “for historical changes of pronunciation”, I have explained the Grimm’s law in my book. 

In French :
1. vert [vɛʁ̞] ‘green’ / verre [vɛʁ̞] ‘glass’ / vers [vɛʁ̞] ‘verse’ / vers [vɛʁ̞] ‘towards’ / ver [vɛʁ̞] ‘worm’
2. avocat [avoka] ‘avocado’ / avocat [avoka] ‘lawyer’
3. coup [ku] ‘a knock, a blow, a shot' / cou [ku] ‘neck’ / coût [ku] ‘a cost’
4. sceau [so] ‘a seal’ (the emblem) / seau [so] ‘bucket’ / saut [so] ‘a jump’ / sot [so] ‘idiot’
5. si [si] ‘if, whether’ / si [si] ‘yes’ (answer to negative questions only) / si [si] ‘so’ (the emphatic adverb) / scie [si] ‘a saw’
6. pêcher [peʃe] ‘to fish’ / pêcher [peʃe] ‘peach tree’ / pécher [peʃe] ‘to sin’
7. moi [mwa] ‘me’/ mois [mwa] ‘month’
8. mythe [mit] ‘myth’ / mite [mit] ‘moth’
9. mettre [mɛtʁ̥] ‘to put, to wear’ / maître [mɛtʁ̥] ‘a master’ / mètre [mɛtʁ̥] ‘meter’
10. port [pɔʁ̞] ‘port’ / porc [pɔʁ̞] ‘pig, pork’ / pore [pɔʁ̞] ‘pore’ / port [pɔʁ̞] ‘postage’
11. mère [mɛʁ̞] ‘mother’ / mer [mɛʁ̞] ’sea’ / maire [mɛʁ̞] ‘mayor’ 
12. ton [tõ] ‘your’ / thon [tõ] ‘tuna’
13. tante [tãt] ‘aunt’ / tante [tãt] ‘a queer’ / tente [tãt] ‘a tent’ / (je) tente [tãt] ‘(I) try, attempt’
14. (je) nie [ni] ‘(I) deny’ / nid [ni] ‘nest’ / ni [ni] ‘neither, nor’
15. signe [siɲ] ‘a sign’ / cygne [siɲ] ‘a swan’
16. eau [ o ] ‘water’ / haut [ o ] ‘high’
17. air [ɛʁ̞] ‘air’ / aire [ɛʁ̞] ‘area’ / ère [ɛʁ̞] ‘era’
18. elle [ɛl] ‘she’ / aile [ɛl] ‘wing’
19. haine [ɛn] ‘hate’ (noun) / aine [ɛn] ‘groin’
20. sans [sã] ‘without’ / sang [sã] ‘blood’ / cent [sã] ‘hundred’

Thanks for the above. I was in need of words of two different languages having the same pronunciation. For example, in French we have a word [si] having the IPA pronunciation /si/ and we also have the same word /si/ 'see' in English too. I want to co-relate  these words on the psychological ground. Please help me.
Pramod

Mr. Daniel and Mr. Malfet
We had long discussion. I was hoping some response from your side. Please look at 'Electronic Supplementary Material". I hope that perhaps I have satisfied you.
Pramod Kumar Agrawal

Thanks for the response.
The paper takes two years to be published. The paper is peer reviewed by three reviewers. They suggested many things to improve the paper. I am personally happy with their suggestions. The editor's response was quite positive.
I am happy for using the word 'interesting'. You don't agree with my concept; maximum people may not be agreeing with it. But 'Not agreeing' is the only way, where improvement finds its way. If all are agreed, nothing can be improved. You may be not knowing, but I have gained many things from you during the discussion. The person criticises you is your real friend.
Perhaps you have seen my book 'Phonosemantic Dictionary' at http://soundmeanings.xyz/ . the book has 3200 words of different languages.
Thanks