On Sun, 29 Mar 1998, Vunch wrote:

> Furthermore, the comprehension of meaning requires analysis of the
> utterance and analysis is a 'breaking down' of something into its parts.
> Analysis does not destroy meaning but adds to its meaning.

I think we misunderstand each other here. Teasing the meaning from the
statement "The artwork of Achilles Rizzoli fascinates me" (something
fluent speakers of English do automatically) and its analysis in terms of
bilabials and other components of speech are vastly different enterprises.
I just meant that meaning and the sounds and structures that convey
meaning aren't the same thing.

> My point was that there was no such thing as reverse bilabials.

How do you know this? Have you looked for them and not found them? My
point is, if meaningful sentences emerge from the backward playing of
forward speech, it will be through recognizable vocabulary, syntax, and
grammar. If these higher level linguistic constructs exist in reverse, it
should be a trivial task to find and describe reverse bilabials.

> However, to analyze speech in reverse is ridiculous. The interpretation
> of speaker's intent is totally absent as is the gathering of data.

Would you clarify what you mean? I don't understand what you're saying.

> Reverse speech is simply not real data.

What's the basis of your judgement? Experiential exposure to reverse
speech? A priori considerations?

> The more I think about this issue, the more my thinking about speech
> gets back to the ral issue of interpretation: the speaker's intent and
> not on the 101 glosses on it.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean. Feel free to clarify if you'd like.
Reverse speech (and Freudian slips and the like, too) might fall outside
the speaker's conscious intent and reveal subconscious intent. Or maybe
not.