> On the opposite I think it is much more important to be able to designate the
> 1st person speaking, and if she speaks for herself or in the noun of a group,
> the person(s) to she is speaking to (either directly, as as the representant
> of a group, but this could be a separate "privately" or "alone" attribute),
> and a generic undesignated/umpersonal 3rd person not designating anyone
> (he/she/it/they), possiblyt with an additional attribute (a number? an
> adjective for "near" versus "far", like in the distinction of "this" and
> "that" or "here" and "there' in English, or "left" vs."right", or "front" vs.
> "back") to distinguish several entities.
Well, yes, there could be a design for an emoji that means ", speaking for
myself," and a design for an emoji that means ", speaking on behalf of ..." and
they could be useful in some circumstances. Also, there could be abstract emoji
for distinguish several entities as you suggest. The way that emoji are
becoming a script upon which language is built is fascinating. I wonder if
there are any parallels with how picture writing turned into scripts in the
past.
> But once again this discussion is about a long personal invention by William,
> that attempts since long to push it as a "standard", when he is actually
> alone and not qualified alone to be an academic source representing an active
> community, and whre he never demonstrated the existance of any active
> community supporting his "inventions" (often self-contradictory and
> constantly changing) :
No. I have been researching on an invention at times since 2009, but this
discussion is not about that at all. This discussion is about conveying meaning
using a direct display of emoji characters. In some circumstances that
conveying of meaning could go through the language barrier. However, the items
in this discussion are abstract emoji and are not part of the other project at
all.
> In other words it is out of scope for the Unicode standard.
Well, emoji are part of the Unicode Standard and there can be abstract emoji.
Please note item 13 of the following document.
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16356-esc-cmt-feedback.pdf
> Emojis are definitely NOT used in the world the way that William thinks.
Oh, what do you opine that I think?
> William is in fact inventing since long another script (which has nothing in
> copmmon with Emojis) but has not been able to conveince a community to use
> and support it. Borrowing Emojis inside his personnaly invented script does
> not mean that Emojis are part of William's script.
Well, although I would not call it a script, I have been researching on an
invention at times since 2009, but this discussion is not about that invention
at all.
In fact, emoji are not used at all in that collection of items due to the lack
of precision of meaning of emoji characters.
This discussion is about emoji.
William Overington
Monday 21 November 2016
