I suspect that this work would be jibber-jabber to any non-English speaker unfamiliar with the original Haggadah. No matter how otherwise fluent they might be in emoji communication.
You can't escape fundamental theses:
There is a well-known thesis in linguistics that every script has to be
at least in part phonetic, and the above are examples that add support
to this. For deeper explanations (unfortunately not yet including
emoji), see e.g. "Visible Speech - The Diverse Oneness of Writing
Systems", by John DeFrancis, University of Hawaii Press, 1989.
Going further: emoji are also subject to being "conventionalized" if that is the term, that is that conventions come about so that some image stands for a concept even if that image isn't directly connected.
Some examples are telephone handsets and other early form of technology standing in for later versions of the same thing. (Floppy disk icon for "save").
More of that will happen with the full spectrum of emoji and these conventions may then also no longer be universal but specific to some group of users.
At which point, you are back at where the other pictographic writing systems started to evolve.
A./
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Apr 16 2019 - 13:22:00 CDT