Re: A Real puzzler

[Mark Garvey mark.garvey@xxxxxxxx]

By "explicitly a text-based" element, I meant that the "smiley" was
composed of plain-text characters.
It may not be a language you know, but it's an element of communication
that conveys meaning to millions of other readers--whether its pop
origins and faddishness rankle or not.
Communication conventions are changing all the time. Ever read a
teenager's phone-text messages? They can make the smiley look like a
Samuel Johnson aphorism. Are they irritating? To me and you, probably.
Effective and meaningful for the teens involved? Absolutely. We can bang
a fist on the table and decry the lowbrow boorishness of it all, but
it's not going away any time soon. Why? Because it works for its
practitioners.
And looked at in another way, the adaptability of the language facility
is actually kind of wonderful, and innovations can sometimes be
appreciated on that basis. I unboxed a new computer yesterday, and the
setup instructions contained not one word of text. All pictures. Worked
like a charm.
Context is all. Smileys and winking parentheses are not welcome in any
books, periodicals, or academic material that I know of. But at this
point in the internet game, calling someone out for using "emoticons" in
email seems priggish and quixotic.



Robert Holmgren wrote:
** Reply to message from Mark Garvey  on
Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:02:56 -0400

The "smiley," for most of its existence, has explicitly
been nothing but a text-based element.
 

News to me. Not a language I know. "Explicitly"? You're
saying that ";-)" or ":)" distinctly expresses all that is
meant? "Text", to me, is a structure created with words.

-----------------------------
Robert Holmgren
holmgren@xxxxxxxx
-----------------------------