Is there an emoji for Thank you

[Martin J. Dürst]

On 2021-10-06 08:35, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
> On 10/5/2021 3:44 PM, Mark Davis ☕ via Unicode wrote:
>> Already representable, so no emoji character necessary: ❤️ 👍
> 
> In regular writing, I would distinguish a circumlocution from "a word for it".
> Both can get the meaning across, but they're clearly not the same. A similar
> distinction is applicable to emoji.

Well, ❤️ 👍 can be written ❤️👍, and then it would clearly be a a word 
(of two characters, so very short compared with the average). And "thank 
you" is a two-word phrase to start with.

> However, sometimes we have a "set phrase". If it's the case that a certain
> string of emoji acquires a conventional meaning, then that would be equivalent
> to a set phrase. And presumably mean that having a single word for it becomes
> much less of a concern.

Yes. There are lots of concepts that use two or three words. It depends 
on the language, and in many ways is a question of orthography. German 
is famous for connecting things where other languages don't connect.

> However, if everyone uses a different ad-hoc circumlocution I would not count
> that as "representable" in the sense that matters for encoding decisions.
> 
> I would make that as a principled distinction, irrespective of where you come
> down here for "Thank You!".
> 
> Andrew Glass had suggested: 🙏
> 
> Clearly, neither his, not your suggestion are as universal as the spoken phrase
> (within its language). So, you could say that a clear and unambiguous
> representation in emoji does not (yet) exist.

And it may never exist. 🙏, to just take an example, can be used for 
thank you, but also for to represent "please" or "praying/prayer", and 
probably other things. And that's not something Unicode can decide, it's 
the users who make things up.

Regards,   Martin.

> A./
>