Re: The rapid … erosion of definition ability

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:10 AM, Andreas Stötzner <as_at_signographie.de> 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
Unicode_at_unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode