I agree (except for the derivation of "emoji"). On Mon Nov 17 2014 at 11:46:58 AM Leonardo Boiko <leobo...@namakajiri.net> 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 <a...@signographie.de>: > >> >> 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