4 ms·

Aren't modern emojis more interpretable than these blissymbols? Sure they are harder to create on pen and paper but on a digital platform, an illiterate person

Aren't modern emojis more interpretable than these blissymbols? Sure they are harder to create on pen and paper but on a digital platform, an illiterate person can still use them easily. Although the modern emojis are limited to "reactions" and not "intended actions" (unlike blissymbols) but this might change in the next years.

mongol 6y ago
When I see a line of emojis, I just skip them. One or two I can handle.
9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago
You can easily use emoji for more than reactions: https://hackernoon.com/try-this-text-only-in-emojis-1af2bfcfec78 https://hackernoon.com/try-this-text-only-in-emojis-1af2bfcf...
sva_ 6y ago
I think there are limits to what you can express through pictographs, while this ideographic way of writing might be more versatile. Though, the article states that there are about 2300 symbols. That seems very excessive, and if there's no way of interpreting without memorizing (would it then still be ideographic though?), it doesn't seem very useful to me.
majewsky 6y ago
Emoji might have a decently-sized (though still incredibly limited) vocabulary, but there is no widely-agreed-upon grammar. You could say "man" with the man emoji or "book" with the book emoji, but how do you say "the man's book"? Just the man emoji followed by the book emoji? Wouldn't that be something like "the man reads"?
- nicoburns 6y ago
  It could be interesting to create relational symbols to connect emoji
  - majewsky 6y ago
    A good place to start could be Japanese grammar which relies heavily on relational markers (so-called "particles"). It would also be appropriate since Emoji originate in Japan. For example, to express something like "I went to the grocery store yesterday", the corresponding Japanese sentence would be structured like this: "I <topic-marker> grocery store <destination-marker> yesterday <time-marker> go-<past-tense-suffix>".

mongol 6y ago

When I see a line of emojis, I just skip them. One or two I can handle.

9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago

You can easily use emoji for more than reactions: https://hackernoon.com/try-this-text-only-in-emojis-1af2bfcfec78 https://hackernoon.com/try-this-text-only-in-emojis-1af2bfcf...

sva_ 6y ago

I think there are limits to what you can express through pictographs, while this ideographic way of writing might be more versatile. Though, the article states that there are about 2300 symbols. That seems very excessive, and if there's no way of interpreting without memorizing (would it then still be ideographic though?), it doesn't seem very useful to me.

majewsky 6y ago

Emoji might have a decently-sized (though still incredibly limited) vocabulary, but there is no widely-agreed-upon grammar. You could say "man" with the man emoji or "book" with the book emoji, but how do you say "the man's book"? Just the man emoji followed by the book emoji? Wouldn't that be something like "the man reads"?

nicoburns 6y ago
It could be interesting to create relational symbols to connect emoji
- majewsky 6y ago
  A good place to start could be Japanese grammar which relies heavily on relational markers (so-called "particles"). It would also be appropriate since Emoji originate in Japan. For example, to express something like "I went to the grocery store yesterday", the corresponding Japanese sentence would be structured like this: "I <topic-marker> grocery store <destination-marker> yesterday <time-marker> go-<past-tense-suffix>".