Is there an emoji for Thank you

[Mark Davis ☕️]

> Something like Heart + Thumps up?

> Already representable, so no emoji character necessary: ❤️ 👍

I was responding to the first line. There is no need for an emoji of "Heart
+ Thumps up" because people can just write "heart" and then "thumbs up".
Now, I don't think that would be particularly understood as "thank you".

IMO this thread is pointless. We don't encode emoji for a concept that
doesn't have a clear pictorial representation. That is clear when anyone
expends a modicum of effort to read the guidelines on
https://unicode.org/emoji/proposals.html instead of wasting other people's
time.

Mark


On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 9:38 AM Asmus Freytag via Unicode <
unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote:

> On 10/8/2021 2:43 AM, Martin J. Dürst via Unicode wrote:
>
> ..., 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.
>
> Agreed.
>
> The point is, users of English have settled on a pretty universal phrase,
> and you can settle the question whether that is "representable" in written
> English.
>
> For the emoji writing system, users have "agreed" on all sorts of
> conventions, like the secondary meaning given the "egg plant" emoji, but it
> isn't clear to me that "thank you" has a common and recognizable
> representation (yet).
>
> One may evolve, but just because anyone can put together two emoji that
> (to them) express the concept of "thank you" doesn't mean that it is
> "representable". If lots of people agree on such an emoji phrase, so that
> they would use it when writing and recognize it with reasonable certainty
> where they see it written, then we can say that that phrase or idiom is a
> representation of that concept.
>
> Until that point you would have to say that the question is open. I don't
> speak "emoji" well enough to know whether the ❤️👍 idiom has achieved
> critical mass in recognition, but the fact that on this list we immediately
> got an alternate, 🙏, illustrates the problem: the suggested idiom is at
> this point not universal.
>
> This isn't to say that everything has to have a universal representation
> or that all emoji can only have one meaning. Clearly, that's not how the
> writing system works. Just as some languages have a much broader range of
> "thank you!" expressions than others, or are able to use "thank you" to
> mean a request.
>
> But before you call something "representable" in an evolving writing
> system, there should be some expectation of that representation being
> clearly recognized by others. Certainly if you use that verdict of
> "representable" to foreclose other innovations, like adding a new emoji
> (whether with a primary or alternate meaning covering that concept).
>
> A./
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20211008/2c9de042/attachment.htm>