From: i18n@...
Message: 4197
Date: 2005-02-17
> (http://www.google.com/search?q=definition:+utterance&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=10&sa=N).I guess you must not be very sensitive to most utterances if all you
> <http://www.google.com/search?q=definition:+utterance&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=10&sa=N%29.>
> > 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,
>One does when one is using common words. Look a the OP. And it is not as
>
> 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,
>Not necessarily. You might be puffing up your own ego b putting everyone
>
> 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!
>That begs the question of language. But you bore me with your little
> Speech is the oral/aural realization of language.
>That is your opinion I guess. We can agree to disagree and you can walk
>
> Ululation is not language (any more than the grunts etc. that were
> compared earlier are); glossolalia is language-like.