<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/20/2022 4:46 PM, Mark E. Shoulson
via Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:9d0c0bb7-ae00-370a-2976-5b7e339fdbdb@shoulson.com">On
10/20/22 11:38, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 10/20/2022 2:07 AM, Dominikus Dittes
Scherkl via Unicode wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Am 20.10.22 um 00:26 schrieb Marius Spix
via Unicode:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">There is actually a sequence of
Unicode characters to clearly describe
<br>
a “Physics Teacher” without the downsides you have
mentioned:
<br>
<br>
U+0050 U+0068 U+0079 U+0073 U+0069 U+0063 U+0073 U+0020
U+0054 U+0065
<br>
U+0061 U+0063 U+0068 U+0065 U+0072
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
This has a different downside: You need to speak english to
understand
<br>
it. This is especially what emoji try to circumvent.
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
No. Emoji weren't and aren't used primarily to be language
independent. In fact, I bet there's much use of emoji that is
based on puns and similar mechanisms: where the emoji is used to
stand for a word in an expression in some language where another
language (or culture) would employ a different word or
expression, so that even translating the nominal meaning of the
emoji wouldn't help you.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
A few years ago, I bought The Emoji Haggadah
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.amazon.com/Emoji-Haggadah-Martin-Bodek/dp/0359159370">https://www.amazon.com/Emoji-Haggadah-Martin-Bodek/dp/0359159370</a>),
which has essentially the whole text of the Haggadah in emoji. In
*English* in emoji, mind you. So for example I think it tended to
use 🐇 to mean "rabbi".
<br>
<br>
The truly disturbing thing about it was that I found I could read
it!!
<br>
<br>
Emoji are very definitely culture-centric. Are they
language-centric like the string of letters? Probably not. I
think I have to agree that the string of Latin letters is not an
acceptable substitute for an emoji, but that doesn't mean emoji
are a language-free neutral zone of graphics.
<br>
<br>
~mark
<br>
</blockquote>
<p><font face="Candara">There are lots of expressions that would
lend themselves to being emojified. Like "pear shaped". I can
easily imagine a conversation where you could use a single PEAR
emoji to express that something might turn out badly (or has
done so). Unlike STAR used in a way derived from movie star, the
concept of something going "pear shaped" has not crossed over
widely into other languages and cultures. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">Your example of rabbi(t) is also a good one,
because such pun-like uses of emoji are common. All of them are
intricately bound up with a language or culture or both.</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">Whereas the two vertical rectangles, or the
right pointing triangle are truly language independent means of
conveying "pause" and "play".</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">One more example: for an English speaking
user, combining the apple with an eye emoji might convey "apple
of my eye", or something precious. A German speaking user would
more likely read that as a very literal attempt at
rendering"eyeball" (Augapfel).</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">The whole idea that emoji as a system have
anything to do with language-independence is simply a red
herring. It doesn't match their origin story, doesn't match
their usage history when they first became popular and doesn't
match how they are used today. That remains the case, even if
there are ways you can try to use them (or a subset of them) to
get your point across when you don't share a language with
someone. But such usages are probably hit or miss. Lucky
coincidences if they work.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">A./</font><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>