4 ms·

That character is super common. Way more common than any emoji I'd expect (even teens using emojis won't outweigh the number of weddings and new years in Chines

That character is super common. Way more common than any emoji I'd expect (even teens using emojis won't outweigh the number of weddings and new years in Chinese speaking countries).

thaumasiotes 10y ago
The question was whether it can meet the Unicode inclusion requirements, not whether it's common.
- barkingcat 10y ago
  Well, even if it doesn't meet unicode inclusion requirements, it is necessary for printing in one of the largest markets in the world. Without that character in unicode, Chinese display systems and printers probably won't use unicode at all (and before unicode they used some standard of their own) - meaning the question is whether unicode wants to be relevant or not, not whether the inclusion requirements fit.
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    Again, it's not a character that appears in text. This: > Without that character in unicode, Chinese display systems and printers probably won't use unicode at all is baseless. In its current uses, it doesn't appear on display systems and when printed it is almost always designed as an image, not printed as part of a font. Compare: http://pic10.nipic.com/20100928/5211371_231333032314_2.jpg http://pic10.nipic.com/20100928/5211371_231333032314_2.jpg
    - ximeng 10y ago
      This is used in discussions of the character, would you not consider that text? it does seem to have a more figurative than literal reference than most characters, in a way that I am not sure how to translate into English.
      - thaumasiotes 10y ago
        Use of 囍 in discussions of the character 囍 can be reasonably considered nominal use (that is, use within a name). The use of a concrete object to directly represent itself isn't really the same thing as the use of language to refer to a concrete object. edit: I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about "it does seem to have a more figurative than literal reference than most characters, in a way that I am not sure how to translate into English", in Chinese if necessary. (No guarantee I'll understand it, but I'm interested.)
        ximeng 10y ago
        How about usage in this passage: 囍事 http://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20160623000760-260115 http://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20160623000760-260115 In response to your edit, I mean that it has cultural resonance that is unusually strong in relation to its linguistic overtones, in many ways similar to the semantic timbre of a character like 福. The level of abstraction is different from English because of the ideographic nature of characters that means the visual appearance is emphasised, so the boundary that you pick out between reference and referent is more blurred. I'm not really clear why exactly this character isn't more widely used in text, but I feel this might not be a bright dividing line from more common characters. I think inclusion of the the 福倒 is a harder case to make, but the examples I quoted elsewhere in this thread make me think it should be included. Perhaps not what you were hoping for in terms of elaboration, the problem is more conceptual fuzziness on my side perhaps than language of expression.
        thaumasiotes 10y ago
        Assuming that 囍事 in that passage refers to "a wedding", first I'd admit that that passes pretty much any test of "linguistic use in running text". Having said that, I note that 喜事 appears in my dictionaries with the gloss "wedding" (well, "any occasion meriting joy, particularly a wedding"), 囍事 does not, and since 囍 is a symbol of weddings which is generally assumed by the Chinese to have the same pronunciation as 喜 it makes for very natural wordplay to substitute it into the word for wedding. I would draw a pretty close analogy with the $ of "Micro$oft" -- it's use in running text, but it shouldn't be taken as evidence that $ is a letter in English.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]

That character is super common. Way more common than any emoji I'd expect (even teens using emojis won't outweigh the number of weddings and new years in Chinese speaking countries).

thaumasiotes 10y ago

The question was whether it can meet the Unicode inclusion requirements, not whether it's common.

barkingcat 10y ago
Well, even if it doesn't meet unicode inclusion requirements, it is necessary for printing in one of the largest markets in the world. Without that character in unicode, Chinese display systems and printers probably won't use unicode at all (and before unicode they used some standard of their own) - meaning the question is whether unicode wants to be relevant or not, not whether the inclusion requirements fit.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  Again, it's not a character that appears in text. This: > Without that character in unicode, Chinese display systems and printers probably won't use unicode at all is baseless. In its current uses, it doesn't appear on display systems and when printed it is almost always designed as an image, not printed as part of a font. Compare: http://pic10.nipic.com/20100928/5211371_231333032314_2.jpg http://pic10.nipic.com/20100928/5211371_231333032314_2.jpg
  - ximeng 10y ago
    This is used in discussions of the character, would you not consider that text? it does seem to have a more figurative than literal reference than most characters, in a way that I am not sure how to translate into English.
    - thaumasiotes 10y ago
      Use of 囍 in discussions of the character 囍 can be reasonably considered nominal use (that is, use within a name). The use of a concrete object to directly represent itself isn't really the same thing as the use of language to refer to a concrete object. edit: I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about "it does seem to have a more figurative than literal reference than most characters, in a way that I am not sure how to translate into English", in Chinese if necessary. (No guarantee I'll understand it, but I'm interested.)
      - ximeng 10y ago
        How about usage in this passage: 囍事 http://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20160623000760-260115 http://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20160623000760-260115 In response to your edit, I mean that it has cultural resonance that is unusually strong in relation to its linguistic overtones, in many ways similar to the semantic timbre of a character like 福. The level of abstraction is different from English because of the ideographic nature of characters that means the visual appearance is emphasised, so the boundary that you pick out between reference and referent is more blurred. I'm not really clear why exactly this character isn't more widely used in text, but I feel this might not be a bright dividing line from more common characters. I think inclusion of the the 福倒 is a harder case to make, but the examples I quoted elsewhere in this thread make me think it should be included. Perhaps not what you were hoping for in terms of elaboration, the problem is more conceptual fuzziness on my side perhaps than language of expression.
        thaumasiotes 10y ago
        Assuming that 囍事 in that passage refers to "a wedding", first I'd admit that that passes pretty much any test of "linguistic use in running text". Having said that, I note that 喜事 appears in my dictionaries with the gloss "wedding" (well, "any occasion meriting joy, particularly a wedding"), 囍事 does not, and since 囍 is a symbol of weddings which is generally assumed by the Chinese to have the same pronunciation as 喜 it makes for very natural wordplay to substitute it into the word for wedding. I would draw a pretty close analogy with the $ of "Micro$oft" -- it's use in running text, but it shouldn't be taken as evidence that $ is a letter in English.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]