Sounds Like

Let's talk about my recent obsession---onomatopoeia. The fascinating thing about it lies within the bounds of semantics. While most of us would define onomatopoeic words as the human attempt to encapsulate the audible into the verbal, this definition is flawed in that it excludes a second dimension of meaning.

Listen: within itself and in an alternate mode that, I am guessing was arrived at through sheer serindipity, onomatopoeic words are words whose meaning (or 'sense' if you would prefer it) can be directly traced to its structure and pronunciation.

In this light, not only is the process of encapsulating the audioliteral into figurative reversed--it also produces a set of words that are essentially "themselves".

For instance, the word "car" has nothing to do with the essence of an automobile. So is the word "rose" as it relates to the flower.

But when you say "meow", or "splash", the meaning and the word are the same. Intent and outcome coincide. Essence and structure collide. The synchronicity that denies the lie---for how can one dissemble when the meaning is the thing?

Is this not wonderful? Does it not make you want to scream "EUREKA!!!" and dance with wanton abandon? Rejoice, reader, you are witness to this (not-so-)grand epiphany!

* * *

Now can anyone tell me why the english onomatopoeia for a horse's whiny is "neigh"? Or justify the sheer awkwardness of "Egad!", "Zoiks!" and "Harumph!"?