What Enid Blyton book are you reading right NOW!

[Daisy]

The emoji faces on this website are superb, in my view, and convey many different emotions which can be understood straight away. Others on other sites (such as facebook) can often be misinterpreted.

That's why I rarely resort to them... yes, the ones on this site are reasonable - if you know what "Razz" or "Mr Green" means - which I don't!

[Rob Houghton]

No idea...I think 'Razz' is blowing a raspberry - so pretty much saying 'sucks to you!' but in a friendly way, lol...and Mr Green is when you say something a bit daft...knowingly naive? Who knows!!

[Courtenay]

I just use them anyway.

[Daisy]

That runs the risk of being misunderstood, and rather proves my point!

[MJE]

I don't think I've ever met anyone quite like you, MJE.

     Oh, gosh - I'm not sure whether to feel complimented by that or not. I think I have heard people say things like that previously, though.
     But I'm curious to know what you had in mind there, Darrell. Just in my view about smieys, and emojis, did you mean? Yes, I find that (and am puzzled by the fact that) most people do seem to like them.

I don't think, when people describe it as a language, that they mean it is a complete language that can be used on its own.

     Well... to me, that *is* what a language is, I must admit. I do squirm a bit when I hear people say that music is a language (sometimes, even worse, a "universal language"). Well, I have been a musician most of my life, and I think there are many good things about music; but I don't think it is a language, much less a universal one.
     (Not universal, because, whether a language or not, music has its own cultural barriers just as much as spoken or written language does. If a Western person has no exposure to African drumming or Indian ragas or Balinese gamelan orchestras, I wouldn't give very good odds over most of them finding it to be anything more than confusing noise - at least without a great effort to learn about it. And musicians from those other cultures would probably be totally baffled by symphony orchestras or the modernist music of Iannis Xenakis or John Cage. No, music is really no more universal than spoken languages are. That idea is little more than a thoughtless cliché, as far as I can tell. But I would go along with the idea (at least to an extent) that mathematics, and its notation, has many of the characteristics I'd regard as belonging to a language.)

At least, not without significant limitations compared to other established 'languages' such as English or Spanish. So in that sense, as per the official definition of language, at least, you're completely right in that it is not a language at all.

     While I'm not qualified to give accurate or learned definitions of what a language is, one thing I sense about a language that seems crucial to me is that it is made up of many small pieces (words, for example) each of which has a definite, relatively basic meaning that is at least reasonably objective enough to convey some meaning to another person who understands the language but doesn't necessarily share your view of life, and that you combine these units together to build up far more complex meanings in quite a precise way, using certain rules for ordering them (grammar) which ensure that, as far as possible, the right relationships between the words are established.
     To me, if you can't do that in any system of sounds, notation, or symbols, it is not a language. I do not see how either emojis or music are a language in that sense; but I can see how mathematics is, although I am far from expert in that language.
     It may be argued that emojis do have meanings, but these don't seem to me to be nearly definite enough to qualify as a language, and there is only a limited range of meanings, so you can't convey more than a few very basic thoughts in them.
     Also, they are not standardized nearly well enough to qualify, in my view: it has already been acknowledge that this forum has some good emojis, which obviously alludes to the fact that not all forums or software which use emojis have the same ones, this being very software-dependent.
     But of course some may disagree and that's okay. I'm just sharing my views on it because the topic has arisen and a few have commented on it.

I've never given this much thought, but here are a few similarities I found between emoticons and words:
a) They can both be interpreted in different ways. I believe you and Rob have been talking about ludicrous and improbable on another thread, and the two of you interpreting that differently has led to a rather interesting discussion.

     Yes, we had a difference about how those words should be used that I actually found a bit surprising, and not normally what I would expect in anything I'd call a language. Still things are relative, and I would still consider this far more precise than emojis and smileys on the whole. Emojis are (I believe) intended to show an emotional reaction to something, and I find emotions themselves far more subjective and vague in meaning than "ludicrous" and "improbable", even given that those words were probably misinterpreted by someone or other. Using emojis to show humour, etc. seems a bit akin to telling a joke and holding up a sign saying "laugh" so that no-one will fail to see when the punch-line comes - in which case the whole thing has fallen flat anyway.

Similarly, I could interpret a certain emoticon to be showing confusion, while you could think it's showing disappointment or disapproval. Just like words, we all use them the way they seem appropriate to us.

     Yes, true - but I do think the difference of degree between those examples is huge, and I find it quite important. The lack of standardization of meaning strikes me as a fundamental problem, too. Are there official definitions of what emojis mean, or at least a consensus that is as uniform as that around what ordinary words mean?

b) They can be used to communicate. I don't think you'll understand this if you don't use them, but certain emoticons have developed a certain flavor to them over time, which could add interesting elements to a conversation in some ways.

     Intellectually, I understand what you are saying, but you are right that I don't personally understand it myself, and just don't see how it can be even nearly as objective as words.
     Also, as I think is known, emojis vary enormously according to where they appear - different software, web sites, forums, etc. have different sets available for use, and it all seems a very localized mishmash from one place to another - so I find it hard to see how a particular emoji can develop a particular flavour outside of the particular local area (forum, etc.) which has that emoji available.
     If I did decide to adopt and use emoji here, I might somehow learn what meanings they have acquired here and use them appropriately. But what would I do if I went to another forum and found that few or none of those emoji were available there? Would I have to go to the effort of learning a whole new set? Or perhaps if I found a "smiley" or "frownie" on the other side, I might assume that it meant much the same as a somewhat similar smiley or frownie here, even if they also looked quite different. But I might find two smileys or three frownies available on the second site, and I would then wonder how they were different, and which one was closest in meaning to the ones I first learned here. No, it all seems hopelessly chaotic, and I just don't find it a good use of my time or thinking to even start on that path.

A lot of people, especially people around my age (I'm 15), definitely do overuse them, and that's one of the reasons why I feel like a lot of younger people don't have a good command over the actual languages containing words. If you want to express mirth, you simply use this ( :lol: ) emoji, and you're done. You don't have to think about the right words or the right sentence construction, and in the long run, it's probably gonna be a bad thing for our generation.

     You have pinpointed yet another concern I have about them: that by presenting a shallow but easy route of communicating ideas, it will be a disincentive to more subtle expression and undermine literacy. As a life-long reader and person who has always wanted to write fiction (albeit it with little success thus far), this has always been something that concerned me. I think it enhances communication if people do have to think more about what to say and are not tempted by an easy short-cut that is in the end pretty poverty-stricken.
     Perhaps it's similar to the idea I've heard expressed that the ready availability of junk food in recent decades has led to poorer nutrition and obesity by providing an easy and cheap alternative to the more difficult and expensive route of buying and preparing higher-quality food, having to know how to cook, devoting the time to it, and so on - but being healthier and better-nourished as a result.

Regards, Michael.

[Rob Houghton]

A good example of emoji usefulness would be in a phrase such as 'You're such a bighead!'

face to face you would be able to tell from how someone says such a phrase, what their true inference means - whether they were angry, joking, etc, but on a forum like this 'You're such a bighead!' could be taken many ways - so emojis are used to underline the meaning.

For example You're such a bighead! would mean the writer is not taking the person too seriously

whereas

You're such a bighead! would mean the writer is a bit upset by what someone has said

and

You're such a bighead! would mean the writer is only joking

but

You're such a bighead! would mean the writer is angry with the bigheaded person.

So emojis certainly can be useful to convey a feeling.

[sixret]

Mr. Green. A cute green smiley that is a basic staple to all phpbb forum emoticons. It is green, rather than yellow, and displays a huge teethy grin, expressing a large amount of happiness.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... r.%20Green" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


RAZZ is "Make fun of" or "Get drunk"


https://www.internetslang.com/RAZZ-mean ... nition.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Darrell71]

I don't think I've ever met anyone quite like you, MJE.

Oh, gosh - I'm not sure whether to feel complimented by that or not. I think I have heard people say things like that previously, though.
But I'm curious to know what you had in mind there, Darrell. Just in my view about smieys, and emojis, did you mean? Yes, I find that (and am puzzled by the fact that) most people do seem to like them.

I absolutely meant it in the best way possible, Michael. Everything you say is so well thought and laid out, and you basically seem to analyze, contemplate, and write about every thing under the sun. It's like talking to a very knowledgable computer program, but with opinions and thoughts instead of lines of code (and NO emojis, ever. ). I don't mean offense by this, but you certainly come across as that to me, online, at least. (I don't think I managed to explain that properly at all, but anyways, moving on...)

Music has its own cultural barriers just as much as spoken or written language does. If a Western person has no exposure to African drumming or Indian ragas or Balinese gamelan orchestras, I wouldn't give very good odds over most of them finding it to be anything more than confusing noise - at least without a great effort to learn about it.

Now this is where I completely disagree with you. I don't think music is a language at all, personally I don't seem to find any meaning in it. But it certainly seems universal. I live in India, so I know a tad bit about Indian classical music. But I've listened to Caribbean music, Opera style music, Peruvian music, etc etc, and I enjoy them just as much as I enjoy classical music in India. (which is usually not a lot, but anyways). And I definitely don't think it's just confusing noise.

While I'm not qualified to give accurate or learned definitions of what a language is, one thing I sense about a language that seems crucial to me is that it is made up of many small pieces (words, for example) each of which has a definite, relatively basic meaning that is at least reasonably objective enough to convey some meaning to another person who understands the language but doesn't necessarily share your view of life, and that you combine these units together to build up far more complex meanings in quite a precise way, using certain rules for ordering them (grammar) which ensure that, as far as possible, the right relationships between the words are established.

This is actually a really nice way of putting it, IMHO. The definition of language on Google is: the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way.
Now emoticons certainly can be used for communicating, the effectiveness being debatable. But, as you pointed out, it's neither structured nor conventional, as each software usually comes with its own set of emojis. Especially on smartphones, I could send a *shrug* emoji, and it might well appear on the receiving end as a *facepalm* emoji, which might lead to some rather unsavory circumstances. . That's why I meant that it's not a language in the official way, but it can be thought of as a rather broken, limited yet surprisingly effective means of communication.

Using emojis to show humour, etc. seems a bit akin to telling a joke and holding up a sign saying "laugh" so that no-one will fail to see when the punch-line comes - in which case the whole thing has fallen flat anyway.

Well, I could reply to a joke with a 'ha ha ha that's so funny!' or a ' ' (it's the laughing emoji). Personally, I find the emoji to be more effective, visually stimulating and fun to use than the alternative. And coming up with a creative, witty comeback every time isn't realistic.

Similarly, I could interpret a certain emoticon to be showing confusion, while you could think it's showing disappointment or disapproval. Just like words, we all use them the way they seem appropriate to us.

Yes, true - but I do think the difference of degree between those examples is huge, and I find it quite important. The lack of standardization of meaning strikes me as a fundamental problem, too. Are there official definitions of what emojis mean, or at least a consensus that is as uniform as that around what ordinary words mean?

I didn't really think of the scale of that misunderstanding. Good point. There isn't any official directory, but the more conventional emojis that have been around for longer, such as the laughing emoji, the crying one, the smile, the devil, the ghost etc are pretty standard and I've never found anyone who takes them to mean anything other than what they're usually known for. Facebook, Whatsapp etc are constantly updating their apps and changing the looks and style of the emojis and adding new ones, so it can get rather confusing at times. If it's one of the lesser used emojis, it's better to take it with a grain of salt and not think too much about what the other person meant by it. But the lesser used emojis are lesser used for a reason, and that is that they're simply not popular enough or needed enough. But I've found that round the 20 or so popular emojis, although abundant in as may forms as there are people (ok, not quite, but you get the point), have a pretty universal meaning.

Rob also has a very good point. Emojis can basically convey facial expressions. That's what they're originally for, anyways.

[sixret]

I have finished reading all three books in Faraway Tree series. It took me almost two weeks to read them. I plan to read Hollow Tree House next. This will be my first read. As far as I know, Hollow Tree House has never been translated into Malay language.

[Rob Houghton]

I'm envious of you, being able to read 'new' Blyton books that you've never read! Hollow Tree House is a great book!

[Darrell71]

I've never read the Galliano's Circus series and a few of the R Mysteries, but that's mainly because I don't get them here. But we have loads of the more mainstream series everywhere in all the bookshops and libraries.

[MJE]

A good example of emoji usefulness would be in a phrase such as 'You're such a bighead!'

     Hmmm... well, if the other person and I hadn't been quarrelling or I had no reason to believe they wanted to insult me, I would assume this was a joke, with or without smileys - even if I failed to "get" it.
     But, beyond that, Rob, if you had addressed that to me with one of the various smileys you gave as examples, any further meaning would just be lost on me. I look at them, and no automatic distinctions of meaning come to mind. And if I strained myself to differentiate, I would have no confidence in any distinctions I forced myself to make. (Probably doesn't help that I'm not much good with faces, and probably have prosopagnosia in some degree, although not completely.)

Regards, Michael.

[Courtenay]

I've never read the Galliano's Circus series and a few of the R Mysteries, but that's mainly because I don't get them here. But we have loads of the more mainstream series everywhere in all the bookshops and libraries.

Can't speak for the R series (I've only read the first one), but I hope you do get hold of the Galliano's Circus series some time, Sunskriti! They were my favourite Blytons all through childhood (and still equal favourite for me with the Adventure series). A highly idealised portrait of circus life and circus animals that I know would never be true in real life (in reality, I'm opposed to circuses having performing animals, other than fully domesticated ones like dogs and horses — as long as they're very well treated), but the Galliano books are really exciting and heartwarming stories with wonderful characters and plenty of unforgettable scenes. I always wished I could have a dog as clever as Lucky!

[Rob Houghton]

Yes - I have always felt that Gallianos Circus is how Circus's SHOULD be in an ideal world. If all animals were treated as Mr Galliano insists they are treated, no one would be against circus's in any way, and performing animals would all be happy and well looked after! As a child I naively imagined this was true of all circus's...and Enid is very clever at making the child reader proud that they have some 'inside knowledge' of how circus's are run...even if as you get older you realise its not quite so clean and caring as she makes it seem!

[Courtenay]

Yes - I have always felt that Gallianos Circus is how Circus's SHOULD be in an ideal world. If all animals were treated as Mr Galliano insists they are treated, no one would be against circus's in any way, and performing animals would all be happy and well looked after!

I agree — even if that's probably the same ideal world as the one where we all stay about 10 years old forever and have marvellous adventures and mysteries to solve every holidays... or where there's a Faraway Tree in the woods behind our house, or a Wishing-Chair in the playroom at the bottom of the garden, or...