Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: 25 Classic Books That Have Been Banned
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 00:50:52 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <10257kt$4jlr$1@dont-email.me>
References: <03gqqj562r4vi0kpi2vl8flsi59jsbot56@4ax.com>
 <l7ae3khglmqvpq8djk30q3pntsou3qfnho@4ax.com>
 <zfGZP.269026$%uk3.135472@fx10.iad> <101dplj$q5st$1@dont-email.me>
 <101f6jd$t5j$1@panix2.panix.com> <101m218$3qnfo$4@dont-email.me>
 <101nl6b$85lc$1@dont-email.me> <52q04kl4i6g1q47oqcctumbctvl49isa8c@4ax.com>
 <101pqim$sbva$2@dont-email.me> <101qumq$15ss1$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 01:50:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0acb70f93178ddb89a5aa9befba09635";
	logging-data="151227"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18lQJJzlatKm3UUQMLzB4AL6efZtsaru7w="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZWipnKk7qsBReL2dsYM8blV2w1M=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <101qumq$15ss1$1@dont-email.me>

On 05/06/2025 03:16, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2025-06-04 10:00, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/4/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 14:16:11 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-06-02 23:43, Titus G wrote:
>>>>> On 1/06/25 03:18, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> SNIP
>>>>> Was there supposed to be a smiling emoji at the end there?
>>>>>
>>>>> The invisible hand of the market is invisible because it is inside the
>>>>> minds of buyers and sellers, their idea of the price of goods or
>>>>> services at which they are prepared to buy or sell.
>>>>
>>>> We don't do emojis in AuE
>>
>>      Well that is too bad! ;^)
> 
> Why? Do you really need emojis to tell you when someone is joking?
> 
>>> Or humor, apparently.
>>
>>      Really I thought it was sort of dry but no humor what so ever. :^(
>>
>>      That is very sad.  But not even puns?
>>
>> bliss who remembers when we had lots of emoji but in more subtle ways 
>> than icons.
> 
> There's plenty of humour in AuE, for those that have been around longer 
> than this thread.

Those are emoticons.

An emoji is arbitrary, non-typographic artwork
inserted inline in text.

To adapt from <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon>,
"An emoticon is a pictorial representation of
a facial expression using type characters -
usually punctuation marks, numbers and letters."

There is overlap apparently in the field of
"portrait emoticons", but Wikipedia explains
these poorly, and Google's AI tries to tell me
the difference between emoticons and emoticons,
which weakens my confidence in the validity of
the term I asked about and the validity of
Google's AI.

Instead, the nearest I can make sense of it,
is that non-typographic artwork that corresponds
to a human facial expression typographic emoticon,
is s portrait emoticon.  Let me put it this way:
If you make your face into the expression of
a facial emoticon, and you photograph your face
doing that, then that is a portrait emoticon.
If you draw :-) on your face, that's just
an emoticon.

But as for exceptions, the link above,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon>
describes hand gestures in the "portrait
emoticon" section, and
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emoticons>
includes various other wildlife, and banknotes,
which are typographic artwork but arguably not
emoticons, not facial emoticons anyway.

"List of emoticons" also shows emoji which
correspond to emoticons.  I think that an emoji
which corresponds to a facial emoticon is within
the definition of "portrait emoticon".

Also, as of the Unicode Standard 6.0, dated 2010,
codings exist labelled as "Emoticons" (faces mostly,
some gestures, some cat faces), and also "Supplemental
Symbols and Pictographs" (emoji).

I argue that these are not "type", since they are
not drawings of writing, they only exist as drawings
of faces - and of very many other things.  And if not
type, then not emoticons in the stricter sense.

Consider :-) and ☺ and 🙂 - the same emotion
(on my screen if not on yours), so the second and
third examples are graphical "portrait emoticons".

I'm tempted to exclude @ from "type" as well.
There's a plausible argument that in describing
quantities of traded goods, it's a stylised
drawing of an ancient Roman amphora (very loosely,
a jug, with a stopper).