On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:10 AM, Andreas Stötzner <[email protected]> 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=LgJQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR22 . -- Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero. _______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list [email protected] http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
