Tony,
I would have philosophers of language and literature distinguish between
the speech of the Individual and the signage of the Corporate State.  I
therefore prefer to reserve the word 'utterance' for the spoken word.  When
roadsign, corporate motto, FBI copyright infringement warning, and war
monument are lumped together with proverb, curse, prayer, cry, and whisper
under the heading 'utterance'  the term retains meaning only for the wonks
in the Semiotics Club. Abstraction greases the skids of war.
Tim Romano


At 09:26 PM 4/30/03, Antony Adolf wrote:
>As for peace having 'no meaning except as it relates to those who enjoy
>it', I find it rediculous that you would think I was suggesting otherwise.
>What I was suggesting is that the extra stability I hold multilingual
>texts provide to referent-refered relationships (a theory, I admit, is not
>yet fully developed- if anyone is interesting in helping develop it,
>please let me know) can by analogy extended to our sense(s) of humanity,
>peace, love, vitality etc. And texts can and are considered utterances by
>most post-Austinian philosophers, a club of which I consider myself a member.