the long and short of it.

the assertion with which cacophonous euphoniuos are conversly aletrnating as phonetic intensives rankles and offends. equating these identitues to each other and further to another term is an untruth. I shall endevour to make my meaning clear.

firstly, both words are different. equating them to each other could only be pursued on the greater meaning that they both share, namely an unpleasent concurrent set of separate noises that are incongrous to each other. but , i shall ask, if they hold such resemblence, why strive to hold them separetly in the first case? wouldn’t we be better off choosing one and forever banishing the superfluous one to the esoteric realms?

of course we shan’t commit such heinous criminality, for the sinple reason that they are substantially dissimilar. cacophonous is a description of the many sources of annoyance. it is a complaint of the many issues of sound, and perhaps a normative inperative, to see those numbers reduced. Euphonious, on the other hand is not a complaint of the many, it is a complaint of the disharmony itself. a person witnessing an orchestra of chimpanzees, gibbons and babboons will be shocked by them all making detestable noise, from instruments of such beauty as harps, and chellos. this would be the former , namely cacophony. later though, as the headache increases, he will be more concerened for his wellbeing, and complain of euphony in his environment.

now. to answer the main of the question, are the words cacophony and euphony phonetic intensive, i shall in turn ask, are you enquiring if such is the case from a phonetics standpoint, or a phonologic standpoint. or perhaps it is an inquest in the sudy of phenomenology?

it is important to be clear in things, to the point that the question is defined in a certain way, that an answer could not possibly be in another field of definition.