Slow to digest, but of durable value... thanks, tsuwm.
seeing as I got lost in about the second sentence, does he ever explain why the sounds sl and du are the ones that developed to be negative?
Slow to digest, but of durable value
You bein' dissed, tsuwm?
bein' dissed
Slim chance, ducks.
Take the Michael ~ mer-oiiiii? :)
As to the argument of the paper, if I understand the outline, his argument is "that the integrated factors of phonetic motivation, psycholinguistic processes and socio-cultural motivation are responsible for the Proteus-like resilience and power of the 'pejorative' sl- schema and the historical localisation of the pejorative du- schema. That is to say, rather than any one of these factors being responsible for schema development, this is a combinatory process."
Or in plainer English, it's a combination of factors based on submorphemic characterisations ~ on which we subsequently accrete a complex association of cultural values. So if two or three words group around a common soundscape and have a similar tonality of meaning or social denotation, it's very likely that other words based on a similar 'scale' will be modulated in their structure to end up according with the same sounds. For example, if you notice (consciously or unconciously register) that words like crack and smack are part of a common family, it's not surprising to find yourself coining a neologism in a comic such as "thwack". [Yeah, I know Michael, it's at this point you tell me the OED cites thwack from about 932AD but :) ]
At least I think this simplification is at the root of the processes the author discusses, which are obviously more subtly examined in all their complexity.
>it's at this point you tell me the OED cites thwack from about 932AD..
wrong, duack-breath. but it did come along about 1530 ce, as we find Heywood writing, "I shall bete her and thwak her." and the venerable bard, in 1607: Here's he that was wont to thwacke our Generall, Biggus Martius., proving once again that he fronted the blacklisted Julius (Kaiser) Brooks.
does he ever explain why the sounds sl and du are the ones that developed to be negative? Well first, if you (or anyone) thinks I'm going to actually READ all of something like that, then you have me confused!
But, I would venture to guess that nowhere in there does he allege that these are the only two sounds that have, uh, slipped down to the dungeon. (And I'm sure also that he isn't saying that all words with these sounds are pejorative; look at slim and slender, for ex.)
I think it makes sense, when you think about it, that images/emotions would come to be associated with certain sounds--that's how we get onomatopoeia, after all. And it only takes a slightly larger stretch of the imagination to think of these same associations carrying over to similar words/sounds.
Interestingly enough, I was doing an unrelated search just a little while ago, and came across a post that not only reflects my own mindset, but may even have influenced it (too long ago to remember for sure, Sweetie), and was hoping to find an apt spot to quote it. Here 'tis:
What I am moving towards is the general *belief that what distinguishes us at our very core is our tendency to make patterns. This is true of language, true of visual sense, and surely true of the other ways we think, such as forming theories. We tend to adopt short-cuts (perception theory is littered with examples of how the brain ‘fools itself’) and discard material that doesn’t sit happily with our frame of reference – because ultimately it is not the veracity but the aesthetics of the pattern that counts to a key part of our imagination!
As a matter of fact 
I believe this is what John Keats means by “beauty is truth…” http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=miscellany&Number=7585
thank you, mav and Jackie. I think that's what I was thinking.
no, really.
beauty is truth
If that's what led Keats to believe that beauty is truth then I submit that he had it flat backwards. Beauty is the order, the pattern, that we impose on truth and a distortion of it and, in that distortion, the exact opposite of truth.
I'm trying to reflect on this, but it's like looking in a fun-house mirror...
need more coffee...
fun-house mirror
Perhaps. I think the imposed distortion of reality comes closer to Truth as it is most often used. I think I'll join you in that nother cup of coffee, Cygne.
Hmm. Faldage, if I understand your post correctly, you are saying that a distortion is the exact opposite of truth. I don't think I can agree with that, in this context. You said, Beauty is the order, the pattern, that we impose on truth and a distortion of it . I wouldn't argue with that! But to me, the opposite of truth is a deliberate lie or misrepresentation, and when we impose order and patterns on "truth", this distortion is not deliberate--most of the time, anyway. It comes from our personal frames of reference: our experiences. For ex.: say that two people are looking down on a field of flowers from aloft. There are two colors of flowers. Person A, who has never heard of or seen a Turkish coffee pot, says, "Oh, look--the red flowers are in the shape of a watering can". Person B, who has never heard of or seen a watering can, says, "The red flowers form the shape of a cesve*". Now, neither person is lying; both are saying what they "see". And I don't think this is "the exact opposite of truth". In this instance, the "truth" might be that the pattern of the red flowers is merely random.
*I will put the only link to a picture of a Turkish coffee pot that I found, BUT--it is a commercial site...come to think of it, I'd better not post it here. But I've saved it, so if anyone is desperately curious, PM me and I'll send it to you. I will copy a quote from there, though, because this Gene person is from Lexington, KY: turkish coffee pot
Comments: “The Greeks call it an Ibrik; the Arabs call it a cezve. The point is, wherever your recipient goes, they'll have fresh Turkish coffee with them. Perfect for camping, road trips, or any vacation.”