From: John Hudson (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jan 10 2009 - 21:26:45 CST
Adam Twardoch wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I fail to see how emoji is non-text. To me, emoji are
> very much text -- as I wrote before, they're the new, vastly extended
> set of punctuation characters.
There is a functional difference between textual articulation marks that
indicate the structure of clauses that make up linguistic communication
and little pictures of things that *may* assume pictographic
conventional significance within a user community (surely you are not
suggesting that all of the random collection of pictures in the emoji
proposal have attained such conventional semantics. This difference is
one of the first things that was discussed in this latest round of the
> Emoji are not non-text signs, they are non-verbal signs, just like the
> traditional punctuation signs. I see no reason why they should not be
Traditional punctuation *is* verbally representative, just like letters.
Pauses and tonality are as much linguistic content as consonants and
vowels. Little pictures of things are not.
-- Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Gulf Islands, BC firstname.lastname@example.org The Lord entered her to become a servant. The Word entered her to keep silence in her womb. The thunder entered her to be quiet. -- St Ephrem the Syrian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 10 2009 - 21:29:29 CST