From: bill@chaos.cs.umn.edu
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Smiley faces
Date: 15 Apr 92 09:54:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: chaos.bill.703331693
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.

fisher@sc2a.unige.ch writes:

>In article <1992Apr9.200056.2161@unx.sas.com>, sasbmt@jjoyce.unx.sas.com
>(Bruce Tindall) writes:
>> In article <1992Apr8.015300.10522@mcs.kent.edu>, dmcclory@Chaos.mcs.kent.edu
>> (Daniel McClory) writes:
>>>Smiley faces must be killed.
>> 
>> I agree, but it's probably too late.  :-(
>> 
>> Earlier writers of satire, sarcasm, and irony managed quite well
>> without smileys.  No one at the time took Jonathan Swift's "A Modest
>> Proposal" or Mark Twain's "The War Prayer" literally, even though
>> neither author put a smiley after the text.

>The fact is that european languages do have exclamation points and question
>marks.  These are as `useless' as the `smiley faces'.  In english, german,
>french, and many other languages, the question is implied by the gramatical
>construct.  ``Do you like smileys.'' is a question even without the question
>mark.  Of course ``You *like* smileys?'' needs the mark.  In this respect,
>the coloquial french has abandoned the inversion of subject and verb for
>questioning, which makes the question mark necessary - ``You are hungry?''
>instead of ``Are you hungry?''.

>The question marks and exclamation points, once accepted as indicators of
>the tone of voice (i.e., reading aloud, you can render the same effect),
>become so usefull that even modern chinese has adopted them.

>I don't know english that well :-) but in french, the satire is allways
>implied by the tense of the verbs or by a few ``points de suspension'',
>as in ``I don't know english that well...''.  Note that the elipsis has a
>leading space (as in ``this ... editor'' on UseNet usually ``this #@!?
>editor'') while ``points de suspension'' have none.

>The introduction of a ``point d'ironie'' or ``sarcasm mark'' for the
>french language has often been discussed by the Academie Francaise, but
>they never came up with a usable proposition.  The problem with the ``points
>de suspension'' for sarcasm is that they are also used in poetry or as
>rythmic indicators in dialogues (``Hmm... let me think... yes!... I'll
>do it!'').  The ``smiley'' is in fact this ``point d'ironie'' - with even
>more meaning carried by the two main variants `:-)' and `:-('.

>The smiley would not be the only new typographic sign introduced this
>century, far from it.  Just think about the copyright, registered and
>trade mark signs.  As a reverse example, the swastika and the lightning-
>shaped `SS' of nazi Germany had become accepted typographic signs - present
>on any standard german typewriter.  Modern historians need to simulate them
>when writing about that period...

>(Bruce Tindall):
>> Unfortunately, use of smileys after text that's supposed to be "funny"
>> in some way has become so standard on the network that many network
>> users assume that the *absence* of a smiley is a deliberate sign that
>> the text is to be taken literally.  This assumption generates zillions
>> of inappropriate "flames" every day.

>There are also lawsuits about missing copyright and registered marks.

>The same way teachers count a mistake for a missing question mark, even
>if it's clear from the context that it is in fact a question.  You will
>say ``but the smiley is colloquial!'', but since one writes on UseNet,
>it is natural to use them.  As you said, this has become a standard.

>One point many people are missing is that UseNet has become an international
>platform, on which you can no longer (could you ever?) rely on perfect
>understanding of english, especially when sarcasm is implied.  I have seen
>a fight sarting with:
>- Damn, the bar is closed tonight, and we don't have any more beer!
>- Oh, really?
>The american who said ``really?'' meant something like ``Oh, no!  This can't
>be true!''.  The scott who made the initial statment understood ``I don't
>give a damn!  What a boring thing to say!''.  It seems that ``Oh, really?''
>is never used literally by Scotts...

>For me, smileys have been a benediction.  How can I dare to write something
>in english if I can't artificially smooth the reader into ``using a grain
>of salt'' and remembering I might not be a native english speaker (with the
>same dialect, what's more)?  It was also usefull to see smileys, especially
>when recieving criticisms about my postings...   (I mean ``... postings :-)'')

>(Bruce Tindall):
>> Even worse, people who are used to this mode of reading, and who then
>> encounter Swift or Twain, are likely to take those writings literally
>> too.  Soon we'll have a whole generation or two of people who, if they've
>> read those authors at all, will seriously believe that Swift really
>> wanted to kill and eat babies, and that Twain really thought that we
>> should call on God to help us kill innocent civilians in a war.

>This is a silly statement.  If the smiley becomes accepted as one more
>typographic sign - I think it's very likely - then readers of the next
>generation will have to approach these authors like any other historical
>author.  When reading Rousseau, for example, one needs to know the difference
>between a ``narative style'' and an ``allegoric style'' - being marked
>by the tense of the verbs.  It is obvious that present day students need
>to be told, as this distinction is no longer in use.  When reading Swift
>(if at all), I'm *very* likely to need comments in any case :-)  I see
>no point in freezing ``proper'' english to the (written) language of a
>Swift - or a Shakespeare, for that matter - especially when dealing with
>computers on comp.misc :-)

>What's more, you have to distinguish native english, native american, or
>native australian dialects from international english...  I welcome the
>spread of the smiley in international english, and would like to see it
>(or the original ``point d'ironie'') in french.  True english, american,
>australian, etc. speakers are of course free to continue without :-)

>As a side note on this topic, it is of course nice to be born American:
you should have added :-)

>one doesn't need to learn the international language - i.e. basic english.
>On the other hand, it's quite hard to learn foreign languages - among with
>there is (or will be) international english...

>Long live the smiley :-)  at least on UseNet...

>Markus Fischer    Dept of Anthropology, Geneva CH    fisher@sc2a.unige.ch
--
bill@chaos.cs.umn.edu
Newsgroups: comp.misc