Re: Mark Beadles answer: No it does not 'exactly answer all parts of the question'. He didn't answer any of the question.
He didn't say anything about 'corrosion'.
Also, onomatopoeia is not sound symbolism. If that is not the case then sound symbolism is all that language is. That is, a word and anything that sounds similar gives that same meaning, which is what all words are. 'Horse' and things that sound like that evokes horse-like things.
It's all eggcorns and folk etymology. Human language is almost entirely arbitrary.
All that is not is onomatopoeia, the very rare interjections and words that sound like the sound they stand for.
OK, maybe Mark did answer to what the OP was looking for. So all I'm left with after this rant is that he still didn't answer -everything- namely about corrosive.
That said, the question is mildly interesting and shows intelligence (not knowledge of basic English though; how could 'corrosion' be at all onomatopoeic?). So I neither down-voted nor close-voted.
As with many questions, they are easy to want to close, not for the full content but really for some ill-fated small detail like bad spelling or making a statement that is blatantly false to a native speaker like 'corrosive sounds like its meaning'