9 ms·
Just curious why you suggest emoticons are glyphs insufficient for the communication of intelligence re emotions. They seem an almost incredibly insightful deve
by cibritzio 6y ago
Just curious why you suggest emoticons are glyphs insufficient for the communication of intelligence re emotions. They seem an almost incredibly insightful development in orthography. What earlier alphabetic cultures expressed so clearly via visuals interspersed among lithographs the essence of ineffable universal emotions?
- Koshkin 6y agoBecause a smile is not an emotion.
- cibritzio 6y agoBut are not emoticons smilies?
- DonHopkins 6y agoEmoticons are similes for smilies.
- lloeki 6y agoIf I say the word ‘ellipse’ (in French) you’d be hard pressed to know if I mean an oval or an omission. You can only know that from context. Body language works exactly the same, the exact meaning of a smile by itself is ambiguous, as it’s built from context. Adding back information previously lost via traditional sentence serialisation in text medium through text emoticons, graphic emojis, and other annotations (like /s) conveys this information which might entirely change the meaning of the sentence; emotion is completely tied to the semantics and critical to understanding. To me it looks a lot like didascalies (stage direction notes) in theatre play texts.
- andromeduck 6y agoAnd words are?