I'm not convinced that it is. A player starts with two non-interchangeable bishops. <U+2657, U+FE01> could only refer the white bishop that is restricted to black squares. That's a semantic difference.Surely not. If it were, we would encode WHITE BISHOP THAT STAYS ON THE WHITE SQUARES and WHITE BISHOP THAT STAYS ON BLACK SQUARES and we would encode WHITE KNIGHT THAT MOVES FROM WHITE SQUARES TO BLACK SQUARES and WHITE KNIGHT THAT MOVES FROM BLACK SQUARES TO WHITE SQUARES.
The non-interchangeability of bishops is a fact about chess rules.
It has no business being "encoded" on the character level.
Let me quote again from my earlier message:
Higher-level semantic constructs are encoded in writing (or graphic notation), and you can see the individual marks, signs, letters and symbols as the element of this encoding. However, how strongly any of these marks, signs, letters and symbols are associated with a specific semantic, and how fixed that association is, depends on convention.
For example, "left arrow" has a very loose associating with a broad range of concepts that somehow relate to direction. In contrast, "integral sign" is rarely associated with any concept outside calculus.
It's tempting then, to assume that the character for "integral sign" somehow directly represents the semantic of "integration" --- except it doesn't.
The same indirection is at play here.
Let's not mix levels here.
A./
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Apr 03 2017 - 11:18:37 CDT