Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> (http://www.google.com/search?q=definition:+utterance&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=10&sa=N).
> <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,

I guess you must not be very sensitive to most utterances if all you
hear is filtered through your professional jargon. I hope that
physicists now the difference between the jargon use of "string" and
something you tie in a know around your finger.

>
>
> 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,

One does when one is using common words. Look a the OP. And it is not as
though you gave me a modern reference,online or otherwise.

>
>
> 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!

Not necessarily. You might be puffing up your own ego b putting everyone
else down but take a deep breath and really participate instead of
assuming everyone has exactly the same experience as you.

>
> Speech is the oral/aural realization of language.

That begs the question of language. But you bore me with your little
word games this week. I think you are boring even yourself when you
could engage in a much more productive discussion instead of liking to
tweak everybody.

>
>
> Ululation is not language (any more than the grunts etc. that were
> compared earlier are); glossolalia is language-like.

That is your opinion I guess. We can agree to disagree and you can walk
away with a "harrumph" that no one will know if it is an utterance or
not. Well, I think everyone but you will know. And that is *my* opinion :)

Best,

Barry