Julian Bradfield wrote:
> Not that I want to hear any more about William's unmentionables; I just wish
> emoji were equally unmentionable.
Well, as you mention them perhaps the moderator will allow the following,
particularly as it relates to Japanese and Japanese has been mentioned
elsewhere
On 08/23/2018 06:48 AM, Asmus Freytag (c) via Unicode wrote:
On 8/23/2018 3:28 AM, "Jörg Knappen" wrote:
Asmus,
I know your style of humor, but to keep it straight:
All known human languages, even Piraha, have pronouns for "I" and "you".
And languages like Japanese, tend to use them - mostly
endet:* Montag, 20. August 2018 um 16:20 Uhr
*Von:* "Asmus Freytag via Unicode"
*An:* unicode@unicode.org
*Betreff:* Re: Thoughts on working with the Emoji Subcommittee (was
Re: Thoughts on Emoji Selection Process)
What about languages that don't have or don't use personal pronouns
I think Blissymbols could be a separate, well-defined script in Unicode
because they are already more or less well defined by their respective
groups. This community of interest can lobby for these implementations as a
whole instead of multiple individuals separately.
Emoji were born in quite a
a new
language, with its own conventions for use of these symbols in any given
context.
A./
--Jörg Knappen
*Gesendet:* Montag, 20. August 2018 um 16:20 Uhr
*Von:* "Asmus Freytag via Unicode"
*An:* unicode@unicode.org
*Betreff:* Re: Thoughts on working with the Emoji Subcommittee (was
code.org
Betreff: Re: Thoughts on working with the Emoji Subcommittee (was Re: Thoughts on Emoji Selection Process)
What about languages that don't have or don't use personal pronouns. Their speakers might find their use odd or awkward.
The same for many other grammatical concepts: they work reas
Rebecca Bettencourt wrote,
> Why don't we just get Blissymbolics encoded as it is?
The Pipeline still has the Everson proposal from 1998, but Blissymbols
are still in the Pipeline.
Scripts Encoding Initiative
( http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/sei/ )
page,
On 8/21/2018 1:01 AM, Julian Bradfield
via Unicode wrote:
On 2018-08-20, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:
Moreover, they [William's pronoun symbols] are once again an attempt to shoehorn Overington's pet
project, "language-independent
On 2018-08-20, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:
> Moreover, they [William's pronoun symbols] are once again an attempt to
> shoehorn Overington's pet
> project, "language-independent sentences/words," which are still
> generally deemed out of scope for Unicode.
I find it increasingly hard
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 5:53 PM, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> Blissymbolics, as pointed out
> by Leo Broukhis, might be good candidates for "emojification".
>
Why don't we just get Blissymbolics encoded as it is?
Mark E. Shoulson wrote,
> ... James Kass says, "Anyone who has ever studied a
> foreign language (or even their own language) would
> easily and quickly recognize the intended meanings
> of the symbols once they understand the derivation."
> ... Well, yeah, once you tell me what something
>
On 08/20/2018 10:30 AM, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
As The Universal Character Set, it should be able to support the needs
of all users. And with the Private Use Areas, it does.
Here, I agree with you. This kind of experimentation is exactly what
the PUA is for, especially for these
On 08/20/2018 10:20 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
On 8/20/2018 7:09 AM, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
Leo Broukhis responded to William Overington:
I decided that trying to design emoji for 'I' and for 'You' seemed
interesting so I decided to have a go at designing some.
Why don't we
There are enthusiasts who want to add many cool emoji to the set and
who may be frustrated by the process and new character limits. There
are other enthusiasts who apparently want to add even more emoji with
the idea of producing some kind of universal pictographic system.
They'd likely need
On 8/20/2018 7:09 AM, James Kass via
Unicode wrote:
Leo Broukhis responded to William Overington:
I decided that trying to design emoji for 'I' and for 'You' seemed
interesting so I decided to have a go at designing some.
Leo Broukhis responded to William Overington:
>> I decided that trying to design emoji for 'I' and for 'You' seemed
>> interesting so I decided to have a go at designing some.
>
> Why don't we just encode Blissymbolics, where pronouns are already
> expressible as abstract symbols, and emojify
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 2:35 AM, William_J_G Overington via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
>
> I decided that trying to design emoji for 'I' and for 'You' seemed
> interesting so I decided to have a go at designing some.
>
Why don't we just encode Blissymbolics, where pronouns are already
William Overington wrote:
>
> I decided that trying to design emoji for 'I' and for 'You' seemed
> interesting so I decided to have a go at designing some.
>
> However pictures of people with arrows seemed to be ambiguous in
> meaning and also they seemed to need to be too detailed for
My apologies for my last post. I realize now that William Overington
was referring to "exact images" rather than "abstract symbols"
exclusions. My opinion stands, though, FWIW.
William Overington wrote,
> The designs that I have produced for abstract emoji of
> personal pronouns could be drawn, whilst each retaining
> enough of their shape information to still convey the
> intended meaning, in, say, the style of the Comic Sans
> font. So the designs that I produced are
James Kass wrote:
> Quoting from:
> http://www.unicode.org/emoji/proposals.html
> "◦Simple words (“NEW”) or abstract symbols (“∰”) would not qualify as emoji."
Well, that is quite clear. In order for abstract emoji to become encoded, that
rule would need to be either removed, or made waivable
William Overington wrote,
> All proposals for new emoji seem to now require
> those blue and red charts from Google Trends.
>
> I have never understood why these are needed and
> what they are supposed to prove.
If an emoji being proposed represents a concept which is popular, its
potential
May I mention please a situation that may be of interest as indicative of some
of the issues with the present system.
In the discussion after the end of the lecture “Unicode Emoji: How do we
standardize that je ne sais quoi?” at the Internationalization & Unicode
Conference 39 conference in
Suppose there's someone who has been working with the ESC for a while
and whose frustration level has passed the boiling point. Let's call
this person "X". X has become so angry that X is distilling recent
experiences into an exposé article for submission to the media. The
media outlet, if
24 matches
Mail list logo
