From: vunzndi@vfemail.net
Date: Thu Mar 12 2009 - 16:09:52 CST
Quoting "John H. Jenkins" <jenkins@apple.com>:
>
> On Mar 11, 2009, at 9:35 AM, Peter Constable wrote (addressing
> Michael Everson):
>
>>> That doesn't mean a RABBIT isn't a RABBIT. What possible benefit could
>>> there be to distinguish RABBIT from ZODIAC RABBIT?
>>
>> What possible benefit could there be to specifying _this_ RABBIT as
>> being a ZODIAC RABBIT (an intrinsically narrower intension)?
>>
>>
>>> It's a RABBIT, Ken.
>>
>> Erm... I think you are in agreement on that point, which is where
>> this thread started: the name in the proposal is RABBIT, not ZODIAC
>> RABBIT.
>>
>>
>>> Then what is wrong with
>>>
>>> RABBIT
>>> * used in Chinese astrology
>>
>> No problem with the name. The problem with the annotation is that
>> it suggests a primary intended usage that is somewhat narrow. A far
>> less biased annotation would be "used as Japanese emoji", which
>> leaves people free to infer use to denote a zodiacal sign or
>> whatever other possible semantics might be used in that context.
>
> D'accord. I rather doubt that these symbols in existing practice
> are limited to the Chinese zodiac and certainly once this set
> escapes into the wild they won't be. ("ur a <U+1F374> & ful of ?")
> Even if they were originally added to provide cute, iconic support
> for the animals in the Chinese zodiac, we shouldn't be marking that
> as their use. Not only do standard icons outside of the hanzi in
> question not exist in East Asia, different countries don't even
> agree on the same set of twelve animals. (Vietnam has a cat instead
> of a rabbit.)
>
> In any event, to even annotate the name "used in Chinese astrology"
> is wrong, not just because it's too narrow, but because it's wrong.
> U+5154 is used in Chinese astrology. The RABBIT emoji could
> conceivably used to refer to the rabbit of the Chinese zodiac, but
> an astrologer who wants something to use the way we use ? in the
> West would use U+5154, not the emoji.
>
> People who want to use them for that can find them without our
> pointing it out. ("im a <U+1F392> wat r u?"/"im a <U+1F377>", or
> "im a gem wat r u?"/"<U+1F384>")
>
>
>
As someone who lives in China I have observed that the animals used
for the zodiac are not produced in any particular style. A rabbit is
therefore simply a rabbit - all rabbits are equally zodiac or non
zodiac. Therefore just the animal name be it rabbit or whatever is
designation that would be best.
Regards
John Knightley
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 12 2009 - 17:04:59 CST