<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/5/2021 3:44 PM, Mark Davis ☕ via
Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJ2xs_G1VYicKp4DthegVAmEJMGEYJ9n_e2=b_gqtO-yCncM2Q@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new
roman,serif">Already representable, so no emoji character
necessary: ❤️ 👍</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>However, if everyone uses a different ad-hoc circumlocution I
would not count that as "representable" in the sense that matters
for encoding decisions.</p>
<p>I would make that as a principled distinction, irrespective of
where you come down here for "Thank You!".</p>
<p>Andrew Glass had suggested: <span style="font-size: 20pt;">🙏</span></p>
<p>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.<span style="font-size: 20pt;"><br>
</span></p>
<p>A./<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>