-------- Original Message --------
SKB: I think there is some terminological confusion, and
a lot of it has to do with "arbitrary". You seem to
assume that the two options are "arbitrary" and
a "UNIQUELY CORRECT god-given, apodeictic choice for s1."
I've been assuming that /any/ connection between the
word and the thing, or between two apparently unrelated
words, means the word is not arbitrary.
For instance, the English and French words for the noise
a content cat makes are onomatopoeic, so I wouldn't call the
names arbitrary, but neither is the unique choice either,
as you point out. I don't see this as a blow to any agenda.
(And the r's are not a coincidence, even if some of you
Brits don't pronounce them in "purr" any more.)
In addition to onomatopoeia, there are what the OED (or at
least the NSOED, which is what I have) calls "expressive"
words. I couldn't find any just now, but your
"incy-wincy" might be an example. A lot of words
with a meaning related to "little" have that short
i. Similarly, when I've asked people about
"mischievious" (glad to know my country isn't alone),
they've sound it sounds right. Maybe the stretched
lips of the "ee" suggest a smile--say "cheese"--
specifically a sneakily fiendish one.
But I think the significance Nabokov found in wordplay
is something different. You and I reject it because
we reject the supernatural. But I think we have to
remember that, whatever our reasons for doing so
(Occam's razor, the value to science of this stance,
etc.), we can't prove that he was wrong.
By the way, the noun "au jus" is common in America.
Since you mentioned it, today I noticed a sign at the
sandwich counter at Whole Foods reminding employees
that a French dip includes a "Cup of Aus Jus".
Jerry Friedman