Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: Asmus Freytag (
Date: Mon Jan 12 2009 - 04:42:53 CST

  • Next message: Asmus Freytag: "Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy"

    I don't know, I don't think where this discussion is going is very helpful.

    I rather focus on two aspects: more-or-less conventionalized
    representation, and more-or-less conventionalized usage.

    If an entity has both of these features, and is used in textual context,
    then it can successfully be handled using character encoding. (Multiple
    usages are not a problem, if they don't require contrasting renderings,
    if they do, we are talking about multiple entities).

    This sidesteps the question what the nature of the conventionalized
    usage is.


    On 1/11/2009 9:34 PM, Leo Broukhis wrote:
    > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Curtis Clark
    > <> wrote:
    >>> 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?
    >> So is 犬 a precomposed glyph for いぬ?
    > As a unified CJK glyph - no, because it is also present in another
    > independent writing system. If you had chosen a kanji specific to
    > Japanese, then - in absence of homonyms - it can be argued that a
    > kanji character is the precomposed glyph for a word spelled out in
    > kana that uniquely identifies that character.
    > Leo

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 12 2009 - 04:44:17 CST