In a message dated 98-03-28 01:45:26 EST, you write:

<< And maybe babies construct
 simple sentences predominantly comprised of reverse bilabials. Remember,
 too, that language is an emergent phenomena and breaking it down into its
 components reveals its symbolic nature and actually destroys its meaning.
  >>

My point was that there was no such thing as reverse bilabials.  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.  However, to analyze speech in reverse is
ridiculous.  The interpretation of speaker's intent is totally absent as is
the gathering of data.
Reverse speech is simply not real data.  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.