From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Oct 15 2007 - 12:21:19 CDT
> P.S. to Philippe, <beg> is no smiley, no ASCII art, and no dingbat.
What I have described as smileys, and what I think they are, does not
include your <beg> (if this is an abbreviation, or just a normal word
between normal square bracket punctuation pairs).
But <dop> or <NON> could be sort of smilies (that you can read also after
rotating it upside-down, or as plain words).
And <-> also is easily read as a candidate smiley, or as a representation of
a double-ended arrow approximated in ASCII art.
I perceive smileys as an unusual use of orthographic letters or other
characters without their normal semantics, but interpreting them as a whole.
Smileys are unpronounceable (of there are no defined word to pronounce them,
and spelling them does not give more sense).
In emoticons, you can't split their representation into separate characters.
If you try to divide them, this is just a series of colored pixels, possibly
animated. A single smiley could have many associated emoticons with evident
associations, the reverse operation (from the emoticon) is not evident (or
not unique in each culture if the plain text-only representation is a word
with abnormal punctuations like :LOL: .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 15 2007 - 12:23:59 CDT