tragos:
I know nothing—and I mean nothing—about linguistics. Which means I constantly have stupid questions about the subject, such as:
Is there any objective standard according to which we can say that one language is more onomatopoetic than another? Because it sure as hell seems to me that Spanish trumps English on that front (except for ‘oink’).
Also: What might it say about the cultures in or through or across or by which languages develop that one might be more onomatopoetic than another?
There is no such thing as a stupid question when it comes to linguistics—language matters tend to be plagued by the incoherent blather of reactionary armchair experts—thus I have no problems fielding any questions on language and giving you The Straight Dope.
One of the foundations of modern structuralist linguistics is the Saussurean sign which says that there is an arbitrary relationship between the signifier and the signified. What this means is that there is nothing iconic or “stop”-like about the shape and make-up of a stop sign. That is, a red octagon with giant white lines and curves has nothing to do with the act of slowing down and ceasing forward motion. This assumption that there is an arbitrary relation between form and meaning, as I understand the history of linguistics, pushed us towards the abstract, symbolic and computational study of language forms (since there was nothing iconic or inherently meaningful about words and sounds) and this was a good thing.
But as a result of arbitraryness, your question about comparative onomatopoetic capacity is somewhat incoherent. That is, by assumption all language is arbitrary, so it’s not possible to be “more or less onomatopoetic”. But we recognize that onomatopoeia, like reduplication or phonesthemes, flirts with iconicity (by which I mean, standing for something in a clear, non-arbitrary way) and sound symbolism, and it would be unprincipled to throw out the question entirely.
There is also, however, the dangerous ethnocentric subtext to your second question: If we assume that all language is imitative in origin—I’m thinking of cavepeople on cartoons—then a language that is more fit for onomatopoetic imitation is more iconic and more “primitive” than the more “developed” languages that do not readily facilitate such imitation. So let’s just be mindful and try to think about sound imitation scientifically.
We think of onomatopoeia as the process of imitating nonhuman sounds using the sounds of human language. This rules out things like raspberries and tongue-clucks since these are universally not used in language sound systems. The tools at a speaker’s disposal therefore are things like stops, vowels, fricatives, nasals, or whatever else in the sound inventory. The question therefore is to what extent—or perhaps at what resolution—a particular language sound system can capture a nonlinguistic sound.
Intuitively, it therefore seems that a language with more consonants and vowels would be better off, so here’s an insightful list of cross-linguistic onomatopoeia. Looking through these examples, I get the sense that all language needs to accommodate most of those examples are some vowels and at least two classes of consonants—stops, glides (y,w), liquids (l,r), nasals (m,n,ng) and fricatives (s,z,f,v,sh). Each class of sounds has its own properties that are useful for imitation: stops interrupt the speech stream and make natural boundaries, fricatives provide turbulent noise, nasals provide humming, and so on. Phonological breadth therefore boosts imitative capacity, as there are more tools at one’s disposal.
But then again, we are dealing with simple sounds whose onomatopoetic imitation becomes conventional and standardized: I’m thinking of oink which sounds nothing like a squeal but that’s how we communicate that noise in English. This kind of standardization reinforces the notion of arbitraryness: All you need, it seems, for onomatopoeia is a set of sounds to perform a passable imitation and a language to codify and reinforce the onomatopoetic mapping. This latter point seems most important to me: Even with a shortage of speech sounds, an imitation can stick and be useful in communication only when everyone agrees on it.
ton, 
eseten), = OFris. sitta (WFris. sitte), MDu. sitten, zitten (Du. zitten), OS. sittian, sittean (MLG. and LG.sitten), OHG. sizzan, sizzen (G. sitzen), ON. and Icel. sitja (Norw. sitja, sitta, sita; MSw. sitia, sittia, Sw. sitta; Da. sidde):
Teut. type *sitjan, for which Goth. had sitan. The stem *set-, pre-Teut. *sed-, is widely represented in the cognate languages, as in Lith. sedeti, Lat. sed
re, Gr. 
(cf. 
seat), etc. 
ttan = OFris. setta (mod.Fris. sette), OS. settian (MDu., MLG. setten, Du. zetten), OHG. sezzan beside sazzan (MHG. sezzen, G. setzen), ON. setja (Sw. satta, Da. sætte), Goth. satjan; causal of *setjan (sitjan) to ![Supernatural Collective Nouns [via wondermark.com]](http://wondermark.com/c/2009-10-30-566nouns.gif)
