<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/8/2021 9:55 AM, Mark Davis ☕ via
Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJ2xs_FHzGeGHc1g_gK8OH7SRTFN=33i9YbTArEXh=YJydNvzw@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">> <span
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">Something
like Heart + Thumps up?</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new
roman,serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new
roman,serif"><span
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"></span>>
Already representable, so no emoji character necessary: ❤️ 👍</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new
roman,serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new
roman,serif">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". <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>OK. I misunderstood what you replied to, but as an idiom for
"thank you" it is not implausible. Just not established, and we
agree on that.</p>
<p>Your comment read as if the possibility of writing that idiom
meant that the concept was representable. So, now we know you
didn't mean that, but the question is still interesting: at what
point does an idiom make a concept representable.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJ2xs_FHzGeGHc1g_gK8OH7SRTFN=33i9YbTArEXh=YJydNvzw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new
roman,serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new
roman,serif">IMO this thread is pointless. We don't encode
emoji for a concept that doesn't have a clear
pictorial representation. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It's the meaning of "clear" in this context that is the
interesting part of the question.</p>
<p>One necessary requirement seems to be that there's sufficiently
widespread a priori recognition of a pictorial representation;
that recognition does not have to be unique, and once it becomes
an emoji, it's fair game for it to acquire further meanings by
usage. <br>
</p>
<p>But what is the position in the hypothetical case where you have
an at least somewhat established idiom for something, but also a
proposed singleton that has equal or better recognition for the
same meaning. Does the idiom always preclude an addition or is it
only one factor?<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJ2xs_FHzGeGHc1g_gK8OH7SRTFN=33i9YbTArEXh=YJydNvzw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new
roman,serif">That is clear when anyone expends a modicum of
effort to read the guidelines on <a
href="https://unicode.org/emoji/proposals.html"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://unicode.org/emoji/proposals.html</a>
instead of wasting other people's time.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>RTFM never works in these discussions :)</p>
<p>A./<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJ2xs_FHzGeGHc1g_gK8OH7SRTFN=33i9YbTArEXh=YJydNvzw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new
roman,serif"><br>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><font face="'times new
roman', serif">
<div
style="background-color:transparent;margin-top:0px;margin-left:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-right:0px">Mark</div>
</font>
<div>
<div><font face="'times new roman',
serif"><i><span
style="font-style:normal"></span></i></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 9:38 AM
Asmus Freytag via Unicode <<a
href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">unicode@corp.unicode.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>On 10/8/2021 2:43 AM, Martin J. Dürst via Unicode
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"
style="font-size:large;color:rgb(51,51,255)">..., if
everyone uses a different ad-hoc circumlocution I would
not count <br>
that as "representable" in the sense that matters for
encoding decisions. <br>
<br>
I would make that as a principled distinction,
irrespective of where you come <br>
down here for "Thank You!". <br>
<br>
Andrew Glass had suggested: 🙏 <br>
<br>
Clearly, neither his, not your suggestion are as
universal as the spoken phrase <br>
(within its language). So, you could say that a clear
and unambiguous <br>
representation in emoji does not (yet) exist. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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. <br>
</blockquote>
<p>Agreed.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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). <br>
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. <br>
<br>
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.</p>
<p>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).<br>
</p>
<p>A./<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>