Difference between Klingon and Tengwar

James Kass jameskass at code2001.com
Wed Sep 15 01:19:41 CDT 2021

On 2021-09-15 5:29 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
> I don't have an opinion on individual characters, but the death of emoji has
> been prognosticated many times. I personally don't think we are at or even past
> "peak emoji" quite yet (in terms of overall usage, that is). However, it would
> be interesting to see whether anyone has bothered to collect data.
The thrill some people get from sending clip art in plain text doesn't 
seem likely to fade away any time soon.
> ...
> The per-character frequencies of any pictographic writing system always have a
> long tail. That's why looking at any one member of such a system always allows
> you to find examples that are "never used". That doesn't tell you anything about
> the writing system itself, and if you accept the need to support one, then
> you'll inevitably pick up some of the tail; that's as it should be.
This is true of any /de facto/ pictographic writing system, which 
excludes emoji.  FAICT there aren't any Han enthusiasts being employed 
to "think up new ones" in the hope that they'll catch on. Emoji 
proponents might be the most likely to bother to run any kind of 
character frequency analysis.  If such analyses disagree with their 
usage projections, IMO emoji proponents would be least likely to publish 
those results.

Getting back to the subject thread, if Tengwar had been on the "Not the 
Roadmap" page and a more robust proposal had been submitted (along with 
the passage of time and a shifting of attitudes), would it be necessary 
for the proposer to make a separate request for Tengwar to be removed 
from the "Not..." page -- or would the Consortium remove it from that 
page as a matter of course upon considering the newer proposal?

More information about the Unicode mailing list