i18n@... wrote:

>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > i18n@... wrote:
> > > To me an utterance conveys meaning verbally, but it may or may not be
> > > part of the syntax and grammar of any particular language. I am pretty
> > > sure ululating conveys meaning in context, as much as a moan or a yelp
> > > or muttering under one's breath might.
> >
> > None of which are utterances.
>
> > > Maybe I missed that day in vocabulary class... is there a more academic
> > > meaning you are referring to?
> >
> > Of course. It's the very beginning of Bloomfield's Postulates for the
> > Study of Language (Language 1 [1924]). An utterance is a stretch of
> > speech, and the first Post"ulate is "Utterances may be the same or partly
> > the same." (Don't hold me to the wording. You can find the article in
> > Joos's Readings in Linguistics and in Hockett's Bloomfield Anthology --
> > I assume it survived the condensations of both books published by
> > Chicago.)
>
> Is that the common meaning of utterance? I don't think "utterance" is an
> unknown word to masses of people with 8th grade education, yet I somehow
> doubt that is what they have in mind - I looked at a few definitions in
> online dicts
> (http://www.google.com/search?q=definition:+utterance&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=10&sa=N).
> Many if not most of them rely on a sense of "vocalization" as opposed to
> "speech".

I neither know nor care what the "common meaning" is; it's a technical
term in linguistics,

> While I don't doubt your guy wrote that in 1924, 80 years later, it is
> not the common usage, nor was it apparently the definition in popular
> dictionaries even before that (see Webster 1913 at
> http://www.google.com/search?q=definition:+utterance&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=10&sa=N)

and one doesn't go to general dictionaries (even unabridged ones --
actually at that time you probably ought to consult the Century
Dictionary rather than the First International) for technical
terminology,

> Perhaps in certain academic circles "Utterance" is Jargon meaning
> specifically "a vocalized stream of words", but I don't think that is
> the common vernacular of it - do you?

and I would expect that anyone subscribed to a list dedicated to the
scientific discussion of writing systems would be familiar with
linguistics and its terminology!

> Best,
>
> Barry
>
> PS - BTW in your definition does the speech have to make sense in order
> for it to be a utterance? If so, then it seems the definition lies in
> the ears f the beholder, just as beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder.

Speech is the oral/aural realization of language.

> But if not, then does it rely on the intent of the utterer to convey
> meaning? If so, then ululating surely applies. If not, then the
> definition is reduced to "making sounds with the mouth", which I don't
> think either of us intends.

Ululation is not language (any more than the grunts etc. that were
compared earlier are); glossolalia is language-like.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...