RE: The rapid … erosion of definition ability
That would be a bit like our forebears having said, “It’s ridiculous to call them ‘tomatoes’ outside Mexico. They’re just big berries, and that’s it.” That observation may have been true, but also beside the point if, in practice, the Europeans found it convenient and chose to call them ‘tomatoes’. Peter From: Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Stötzner Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 2:09 AM To: Mark Davis ☕️ Cc: unicode@unicode.org Subject: Re: The rapid … erosion of definition ability Am 17.11.2014 um 08:35 schrieb Mark Davis ☕️: IT’S EASY TO DISMISS EMOJI. They are, at first glance, ridiculous The only ridiculous thing is to name them “Emoji” outside Japan. They’re just signs and that’s it. Regards, Andreas Stötzner. ___ Andreas Stötzner Gestaltung Signographie Fontentwicklung Haus des Buches Gerichtsweg 28, Raum 434 04103 Leipzig 0176-86823396 http://stoetzner-gestaltung.prosite.com ___ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Re: The rapid ... erosion of definition ability
2014-11-17 10:15 GMT-02:00 Mark Davis ☕️ : > I agree (except for the derivation of "emoji"). > Oh, you're totally right: *e-* “drawing” plus *-moji *“character”. My mistake! 😖 ___ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Re: The rapid ... erosion of definition ability
I agree (except for the derivation of "emoji").
On Mon Nov 17 2014 at 11:46:58 AM Leonardo Boiko
wrote:
> "Sign" is too general. The word has no less than 12 meanings, and can
> refer e.g. to many Unicode characters that are not emojis ("the sharp
> sign", "the less-than sign").[1]
>
> It's useful to have a specialized word referring specifically to the new
> pictograms used to color electronic messages with emotional inflection.
> Borrowing is a perfectly adequate and natural strategy to get such a word
> into a language – as indeed English did with the word "sign", from Old
> French *signe *< Latin *signum* ; and as Japanese did with the English
> word *emotion *, from which the *emo-* in *emoji, *and with Chinese,
> from which *-ji* "written character".
>
> If borrowing words when they're useful is ridiculous, then all languages
> are ridiculous, and when everything is ridiculous nothing is.
>
>
> [1] http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sign
>
>
>
> 2014-11-17 8:09 GMT-02:00 Andreas Stötzner :
>
>>
>> Am 17.11.2014 um 08:35 schrieb Mark Davis ☕️:
>>
>> IT’S EASY TO DISMISS EMOJI. They are, at first glance, ridiculous
>>
>>
>> The only ridiculous thing is to name them “Emoji” outside Japan.
>> They’re just signs and that’s it.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andreas Stötzner.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>>
>> Andreas Stötzner Gestaltung Signographie Fontentwicklung
>>
>> Haus des Buches
>> Gerichtsweg 28, Raum 434
>> 04103 Leipzig
>> 0176-86823396
>>
>> http://stoetzner-gestaltung.prosite.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Unicode mailing list
>> Unicode@unicode.org
>> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>>
>>
>
___
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Re: The rapid ... erosion of definition ability
On Mon Nov 17 2014 at 12:15:08 PM Andreas Stötzner wrote: > > Am 17.11.2014 um 11:46 schrieb Leonardo Boiko: > > "Sign" is too general > > > in its generality it is just perfect. The sets of signs in question are > most general, covering much more matters, objects and topics than the > actual emoticons. > >> They’re just signs and that’s it. The term 'emoji' is certainly a useful term for people to use, denoting a certain kind of symbol. Saying that one should never use it is like saying that one should never say "dog" or "cat", only the generic "animal"... > The UCS defines the 1F600 set properly as Emoticons. At least, we should > (in English) speak of Emoticons and not Emoji. > Not really (and we don't really "define" them as emoticons; that's just the block name—and arguably should should have been different). > Other “symbols” (another misnomer i.m.h.o., but that’s another story) > Not, at least, in English. > of this kind are termed “Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs”. This is > not bad but unprecise as well since many of these signs are not pictographs > but ideographs. > We warn people in multiple places that the names of blocks are *not* reliable guides to the kinds of characters in the block. > Yeah what the heck ;) > > We have a long tradition of naming these things rather lousy (“Dingbats”). > I am a traditionalist as a matter of fact but if precise terming is tricky > I find it better to generalize than to blur. > I generally agree about the utility of having generic terms in a language. Listening to Swiss newscasts, I find it bizarre to hear pretty clumsy phrasing that is the equivalent of the following (because there is a different form for male and female of many nouns). — The politicians(m) and politicians(f) met with the directors(m) and directors(f), writers(m) and writers(f), and actors(m) and actresses. We suffer from it much less in English, mostly with "he" and "she", although clearly the use of "they" as a gender-neutral signular is on the upswing (although it's been around for centuries). However, what is most useful is when there are generic terms, *plus* specific ones. > > > > ___ > > Andreas Stötzner Gestaltung Signographie Fontentwicklung > > Haus des Buches > Gerichtsweg 28, Raum 434 > 04103 Leipzig > 0176-86823396 > > http://stoetzner-gestaltung.prosite.com > > > ___ > Unicode mailing list > Unicode@unicode.org > http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode > ___ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Re: The rapid … erosion of definition ability
2014-11-17 9:10 GMT-02:00 Andreas Stötzner : > [sign] in its generality it is just perfect. […] At least, we should (in English) speak of Emoticons and not Emoji. […] if precise terming is tricky I find it better to generalize These are your opinions. I find them to be perfectly valid (exactly as valid as anyone else’s, mine included). However, no single individual's opinion has any special power about what goes into the vocabulary of a language; rather, the lexicon is determined collectively by whatever the community of speakers finds to be useful. Clearly English speakers found "sign" to be too imprecise, and as of now, they seem to prefer "emoji" to "emoticon" (probably because "emoticon" was already in use to denote multi-character pictographs built from non-pictographs, such as ":-)" – the original use of the coinage). If speakers want a word referring specifically to these new modal pictograms, they will have one and that's it. You're entitled to find linguistic borrowing to be "ridiculous"; but I'm equally entitled to find your moral judgment to be condescending and historically uninformed (unless you want to restrict yourself to Anglo-Saxon words, in which case say goodbye to "generality" (< Lat. *generalis*), "emotion" (< Fr. *émotion*), "icon" (< Greek *eikon*) etc.); and at any rate neither of our opinions will have any effect in what words shall the speakers adopt. ___ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Re: The rapid … erosion of definition ability
Thanks for a very good clarification. On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Leonardo Boiko wrote: > 2014-11-17 9:08 GMT-02:00 Magnus Bodin ☀ : > >> Just to clarify. The transcribed form "ji" in the japanese emoji word >> 絵文字 is probably not from mandarin, since 字 is pronounced "zi" in mandarin. >> Is it pronounced "ji" in an other chinese language? >> > > Japanese doesn't usually borrow from Mandarin. Rather, a large amount of > its vocabulary (about 60%) was borrowed from classical and medieval Chinese > (much like the way that 58% of English words were borrowed from Latin and > French). These words of Chinese origin are called *kango* in Japanese, > and *ji *is one of them – quite naturally, as the concept of “written > character” itself was acquired from China. > > There are three main layers of Chinese loans into Japanese: a stratum they > call *go-on*, which came from Late Old Chinese and Early Middle Chinese > (with a Korean flavor); the *kan-on* stratum *, *from the Chang'an > dialect of Late Middle Chinese; and a bit of Song/Yuan Late Middle Chinese > as *tōsō-on* [1]. > > The Japanese word *ji *“character” is from *go-on* Chinese, likely > developing from Old Chinese *tsəʔ/*dzəh [2] or *dzə [3]. 字 may also be > pronounced *shi*, which is from the *kan-on* layer. > > Notice that the Mandarin sound written as ‹z› (in 字 *zì *) doesn’t denote > the [z] consonant but rather [ts] (Mandarin has no voiced consonants like > [z] or [d]); and also that the Jap. ‹j› isn't English ‹j› but the same > phoneme as a voiced /ti/ → /di/ → [(d)ʑi]. But this similarity isn't > because Japanese borrowed from Mandarin; rather, they're cousins to the > same ancestor. > > [1] Miyake, *Old Japanese: A Phonetic Reconstruction*. > [2] Schuessler, *ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese*. > [3] Baxter-Sagart Old Chinese reconstruction. > > > ___ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Re: The rapid … erosion of definition ability
2014-11-17 9:08 GMT-02:00 Magnus Bodin ☀ : > Just to clarify. The transcribed form "ji" in the japanese emoji word > 絵文字 is probably not from mandarin, since 字 is pronounced "zi" in mandarin. > Is it pronounced "ji" in an other chinese language? > Japanese doesn't usually borrow from Mandarin. Rather, a large amount of its vocabulary (about 60%) was borrowed from classical and medieval Chinese (much like the way that 58% of English words were borrowed from Latin and French). These words of Chinese origin are called *kango* in Japanese, and *ji *is one of them – quite naturally, as the concept of “written character” itself was acquired from China. There are three main layers of Chinese loans into Japanese: a stratum they call *go-on*, which came from Late Old Chinese and Early Middle Chinese (with a Korean flavor); the *kan-on* stratum *, *from the Chang'an dialect of Late Middle Chinese; and a bit of Song/Yuan Late Middle Chinese as *tōsō-on* [1]. The Japanese word *ji *“character” is from *go-on* Chinese, likely developing from Old Chinese *tsəʔ/*dzəh [2] or *dzə [3]. 字 may also be pronounced *shi*, which is from the *kan-on* layer. Notice that the Mandarin sound written as ‹z› (in 字 *zì *) doesn’t denote the [z] consonant but rather [ts] (Mandarin has no voiced consonants like [z] or [d]); and also that the Jap. ‹j› isn't English ‹j› but the same phoneme as a voiced /ti/ → /di/ → [(d)ʑi]. But this similarity isn't because Japanese borrowed from Mandarin; rather, they're cousins to the same ancestor. [1] Miyake, *Old Japanese: A Phonetic Reconstruction*. [2] Schuessler, *ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese*. [3] Baxter-Sagart Old Chinese reconstruction. ___ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Re: The rapid … erosion of definition ability
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:10 AM, Andreas Stötzner wrote: > > Am 17.11.2014 um 11:46 schrieb Leonardo Boiko: > > "Sign" is too general > > > in its generality it is just perfect. The sets of signs in question are most > general, covering much more matters, objects and topics than the actual > emoticons. They aren't signs. I can't say that that is true for all dialects of English, but it's certainly true for my idiolect. > The UCS defines the 1F600 set properly as Emoticons. At least, we should (in > English) speak of Emoticons and not Emoji. Why? Why is one better then the other? > Other “symbols” (another misnomer > i.m.h.o., but that’s another story) A word that dates back to at least the 18th century; e.g. http://books.google.com/books?id=LgJQYAAJ&pg=PR22 . -- Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero. ___ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
re: The rapid evolution of a wordless tongue
> Message du 17/11/14 08:55 > De : "Mark Davis ☕️" > A : "Unicode Public" , "UTC" , "emoji-utc" > Objet : The rapid evolution of a wordless tongue > > http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/emojis-rapid-evolution.html I love the nickname – « emoji don’t have official names, just nicknames created by their users » – of the oldest “emoji” : « Invisible Man With Twirled Mustache », that is « The 3,000-year-old tilde », « ~ »… ___ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Re: The rapid … erosion of definition ability
Am 17.11.2014 um 11:46 schrieb Leonardo Boiko: > "Sign" is too general in its generality it is just perfect. The sets of signs in question are most general, covering much more matters, objects and topics than the actual emoticons. The UCS defines the 1F600 set properly as Emoticons. At least, we should (in English) speak of Emoticons and not Emoji. Other “symbols” (another misnomer i.m.h.o., but that’s another story) of this kind are termed “Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs”. This is not bad but unprecise as well since many of these signs are not pictographs but ideographs. Yeah what the heck ;) We have a long tradition of naming these things rather lousy (“Dingbats”). I am a traditionalist as a matter of fact but if precise terming is tricky I find it better to generalize than to blur. ___ Andreas Stötzner Gestaltung Signographie Fontentwicklung Haus des Buches Gerichtsweg 28, Raum 434 04103 Leipzig 0176-86823396 http://stoetzner-gestaltung.prosite.com ___ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Re: The rapid … erosion of definition ability
"Sign" is too general. The word has no less than 12 meanings, and can
refer e.g. to many Unicode characters that are not emojis ("the sharp
sign", "the less-than sign").[1]
It's useful to have a specialized word referring specifically to the new
pictograms used to color electronic messages with emotional inflection.
Borrowing is a perfectly adequate and natural strategy to get such a word
into a language – as indeed English did with the word "sign", from Old
French *signe *< Latin *signum* ; and as Japanese did with the English
word *emotion
*, from which the *emo-* in *emoji, *and with Chinese, from which *-ji*
"written character".
If borrowing words when they're useful is ridiculous, then all languages
are ridiculous, and when everything is ridiculous nothing is.
[1] http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sign
2014-11-17 8:09 GMT-02:00 Andreas Stötzner :
>
> Am 17.11.2014 um 08:35 schrieb Mark Davis ☕️:
>
> IT’S EASY TO DISMISS EMOJI. They are, at first glance, ridiculous
>
>
> The only ridiculous thing is to name them “Emoji” outside Japan.
> They’re just signs and that’s it.
>
>
> Regards,
> Andreas Stötzner.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
>
> Andreas Stötzner Gestaltung Signographie Fontentwicklung
>
> Haus des Buches
> Gerichtsweg 28, Raum 434
> 04103 Leipzig
> 0176-86823396
>
> http://stoetzner-gestaltung.prosite.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Unicode mailing list
> Unicode@unicode.org
> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>
>
___
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Re: The rapid … erosion of definition ability
Am 17.11.2014 um 08:35 schrieb Mark Davis ☕️: > IT’S EASY TO DISMISS EMOJI. They are, at first glance, ridiculous The only ridiculous thing is to name them “Emoji” outside Japan. They’re just signs and that’s it. Regards, Andreas Stötzner. ___ Andreas Stötzner Gestaltung Signographie Fontentwicklung Haus des Buches Gerichtsweg 28, Raum 434 04103 Leipzig 0176-86823396 http://stoetzner-gestaltung.prosite.com ___ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
