Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: Leo Broukhis (
Date: Sun Jan 11 2009 - 16:27:51 CST

  • Next message: Leo Broukhis: "Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy"

    On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 1:16 PM, David Starner <> wrote:
    > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Leo Broukhis <> wrote:
    >> What if we're talking about a language with a nascent writing system
    >> (less than 10 y.o.) for which there are only 3 abecedaries so far?
    > We don't encode stuff that's only been used in 3 books.

    Even if their total circulation is in the millions? All right, why
    encode stuff that's only been used by 3 cell phone providers, then?

    >> It's a precomposed glyph for the word "dog" then. Sorry, not eligible
    >> for encoding.
    > So is resumé a precomposed glyph for resume?
    > Is chat a French precomposed glyph for cat?

    No (silly questions), there is nothing *pre*composed in them.

    > Is w just a precomposed glyph for vv?

    I cannot think of an English minimal pair now (unfortunately, "sawy"
    is not a word), but even if it is, the grandfahering clause applies.

    > a picture of a dog is a precomposed glyph for the word dog is absurd.

    Naturally, not in general (I wouldn't claim that any photo or any
    drawing of a dog is a precomposed glyph), but when an attempt is made
    to use a stylized picture in plain text but no evidence is given for
    any semantic difference from the corresponding word spelled out, what
    else is it if not a precomposed glyph for that word?

    The universal intelligibility as a semantic difference argument would
    not help, because then the "well-defined set" argument breaks down.
    Encode blisssymbolics and use emoji as glyph variants then.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 11 2009 - 16:30:51 CST