You will have to give more examples but by my reckoning it is likely because "exquisite" is the intrinsic property of non-common usage, negative concepts causes them to sound "exotic".

vial

It's how they're pronounced -- vile, for instance, has a certain phlegm behind it. I'm no expert, of course. There's definitely books on the subject.

Phial

>>7615886
Vile sounds pretty if you say it like a 12yr old girl, but if you put some real gutteral bile behind it the word is very aggressive

>>7615920
Tell me more about 12yr old girls saying pretty things

>>7615933
Ask nabokov

>>7615920
But would that make the word aggressive or are you just noticing a deliberately appropriate, aggressive pronunciation?
>>7615904
Phonetically this is the same word and it would never sound of guttural bile

>>7615956
I'm saying that the attitude of a word is largely determined by its delivery rather than its definition.

I can say fuck lovingly, love angrily, whatever basically.

onomatopoeia isn't "a nice word sounds nice" though, it's a word sounding like the sound or process it's describing - plop, piss, spit, hoot etc.

>>7615886
>often
I don't think this is the case.

On the one hand, you have words like 'vile', which have this quasi-onomatopoeic quality of sounding as exquisitely (as you put it) vile as their meaning, but on the other hand, there are plenty of words like (off the top of my head): grace, elegance, ethereal etc, which sound really fucking nice.

I think there's some sort of law in psychology which says we're more perceptive to things that appear bad than things that appear good.

>>7615904
Only if you are american.

>>7617022
negativity bias

p.s. it's not a 'law.' psychology doesn't have 'laws.'