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 > means, I know what it means! The point of emoji is > that they already make some sort of "obvious" > sense—admittedly, to those who are in the covered > culture.
To be clear, I do not think William Overington's personal pronoun symbol designs would make valid emoji candidates. I'm only talking about the symbols as abstract symbols. Blissymbolics, as pointed out by Leo Broukhis, might be good candidates for "emojification". Emoji are pictographic. Abstract symbols are not.
