On Sun, 29 Mar 1998, Vunch wrote:

I would say we've gone off-topic and it is evident that you haven't much
interest in examining reverse speech. So beyond this, there may be no
point in continuing the exchange. I appreciate that you can ignore a
novel, strange, and possibly wrong claim instead of attacking it
hysterically.

> The sounds of speech are structures, physical structures that we can
> describe in terms of tone, hertz, volume, etc. How humans make speech
> sounds in any language, even in reverse, is with these structures:
> labials, fricatives, gutternals, dentals, etc...In each language, a
> combination of phonologically-coded sounds 'stands for' a meaning.  This
> is called a phoneme-morpheme correspondence.

Yes, we agree. It's just what I've been saying all along. However, I
wouldn't make as strong a claim about reverse speech as you've done above.
I don't know enuf about it and think it appropriate to leave room for new
discoveries and theories.

> [some patronizing material cut] Most of your interlocuter's will not
> acknowledge your interpretation of their utterance and hence the
> validity of your interpretation as a listener will be jeopardized
> because they might think that your are not trying to understand what
> they meant to say.

As long as reverse speech remains a fringe claim, I accept your first
conclusion above. Of course, that goes for just about any fringe claim,
almost by definition. If however, a large number of people examine reverse
speech and find it a fruitful enterprise, then my interlocuters will
acknowledge my interpretation of their utterances. That, of course, would
apply to analyses from the past, too. All this has more to do with
epistemology, however, than it does with linguistics or reverse speech per
se.

I offer a quote from a totally unrelated source but pertinent here even
if it is a "tad grandiose and self-serving":

"I have willingly submitted my plates to the scrutiny of wise men,
desiring to learn their verdict, rather than to proclaim my own in this
totally new and much mooted question. I address myself to scholars, hoping
to be instructed by their most learned responses . . . It is my fervent
expectation that illustrious [scientists] will shed light upon this
dispute which is as obscure as it is unusual. I shall add thereto my own
humble torch, nor shall I spare any effort to reveal and declare whatever
future yields may arise from . . . the continuous labors of my workers,
and whatever opinion my mind may embrace."

-- from _Lithographiae Wircburgensis_ (1726) by Beringer

(I couldn't resist offering such a hilariously pompous quote in my own
defense.)