Language is ❌ just a ๐ป๐ ๐๐ to ๐ฑ๐; it’s also ๐ฆ ๐ฅ. Language is a ๐๐ต๐ถ, a ๐ฑ group, a ๐๐ of ๐ก that can ๐ ➕ to create meaningful 1⃣➕2⃣. Language is given a set of ๐, and is used to convey ๐๐ฒ and ๐ญ to ๐ซ๐ฌ๐ญ. But language isn’t just a ๐ ๐; it’s a ๐ด of the๐ —a ๐ฆ ๐ฅ. ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ more than others, it is their ๐ฅ.
❓ isn’t ๐๐ช๐ธ like๐ ๐บ๐ธ, and ๐๐บ๐ธ like๐ ๐ซ๐ท? Well, for a language to ๐ a language, ๐ ๐ถ ❌ just ๐ at the ๐๐ or ๐ญ ๐ the ๐ก. ๐ ๐ถ must ๐ beyond the ๐ and into the ๐ฑ ๐ฅ, the legitimacy of the language, the ๐ฐ๐ and the ๐ญ๐ฅ๐ซ of ๐ก. A language is only legitimate if it can ✊ the ⚓๐ช of ๐๐ and ๐๐. No 1⃣ ๐ถ language can ๐ ๐ to the other, ❓ Well, language in itself isn’t ๐ฏ. So for something that isn’t even considered ๐ฏ how can it ๐ ๐ to another?
Language creates an ๐๐ -๐ก๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฟ ๐ with the ๐ซ๐ฌ๐ญ who share that language and the ๐ซ๐ฌ๐ญ who have ❌ ๐ญ as to what that a particular language may mean. ๐๐บ๐ธ may ๐ ๐ as an ๐ฏ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฐ๐ท๐ฎ๐น ๐; but how can it ๐ an ๐ฏ๐ต๐ฐ๐ท๐ฉ๐ช๐ฎ๐น ๐ when ๐ซ๐ฌ๐ญ are obligated to ๐ฌ✏ it. As language is an ๐ฅ, it creates ๐ง๐ง for ๐ฒ๐จ๐ณ๐ who have ❌ ❔ as to what “๐๐บ๐ธ” is. But of course, even if a ๐ณ๐จ๐ฒ๐ knew ๐๐บ๐ธ, unless their ๐ก๐ was ๐๐ with ๐ค, ๐ซ, and ๐ข ๐ก they wouldn’t be taken as seriously and would be ๐✒ as ๐, or just a ๐ถ ๐ณ. Should it matter whether a ๐ฆ is ๐ฑ “๐ and ๐” or ๐ and ๐, or “to whom” or “to who”? The ๐ฑ ๐ ๐ฉ๐ช are gone, but ❓ do we still expect ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฆ๐ณ and basically ๐ฆ๐ง๐ฉ else to ๐๐บ๐ธ๐?
Whether a ๐ฆ is from a ๐ฏ๐ต๐ฐ๐ท๐ฎ๐น ๐ their language or whether they are from a ๐ฎ๐น๐ฏ๐ต๐ท๐บ ๐ต ๐ ๐ the “๐ฏ๐ต๐ฐ๐ท๐ฎ๐น๐ฉ๐ช ๐,” ๐๐บ๐ธ? Regardless, they will feel as ๐ก๐ณ๐ฐ๐ to the common language like other ๐ซ๐ฌ๐ญ feel in the ๐ช of a different language.
๐๐บ๐ธ isn’t the only language in the ๐. However, ๐ ๐ถ believe it is—well that it should ๐. But why? ๐๐บ๐ธ is❌❌ else but a bunch of borrowed ๐ก. A language that was borrowed, that brings together so much ๐ณ๐ฏ๐ต๐๐ช๐ธ, and then ✅ its ๐๐ฆ to judge other languages, doesn’t seem ✅ at all. How ๐จ๐๐ a borrowed language and its ๐๐ฆ ✋๐จ ๐ณ๐๐จ groups to ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ท their ๐ฅ and ๐ the ๐๐บ๐ธ, when ๐๐บ๐ธ is only but a ๐ฆ๐ฏ of languages and ๐ฅ๐ฅ. Regardless of the ๐๐๐ฏ๐ต๐ท๐บ๐ฎ๐น and language ๐ง๐ง, a language is ➕ than just ๐ก; it’s a ๐ฆ ๐ฅ and potentially their entire ๐ถ๐ง๐ฉ.
This was one of my hardest blog posts to write because it went from being a meaningful blog post to a well written text message. Using the emoji’s to replace words was difficult but easy. I knew what emoji I wanted to use for each word I wanted to replace, however I was afraid that none of the audience would understand what I was saying. I made many compromises while writing because I knew I had to choose words that I would be able to easily or effectively communicate the meaning through emoji’s. Standard English of course was included, however if I ever had to type or write with emoji’s right smack in the middle of my sentences I would probably go nuts. The way I had to create words through emoji's was difficult since there isn't an emoji for absolutely everything. However whatever much I could do, I did, so that the meaning of the post wasn't changed too dramatically. Ultimately I don’t think I was able to fully get my point across effectively.
Read More
❓ isn’t ๐๐ช๐ธ like๐ ๐บ๐ธ, and ๐๐บ๐ธ like๐ ๐ซ๐ท? Well, for a language to ๐ a language, ๐ ๐ถ ❌ just ๐ at the ๐๐ or ๐ญ ๐ the ๐ก. ๐ ๐ถ must ๐ beyond the ๐ and into the ๐ฑ ๐ฅ, the legitimacy of the language, the ๐ฐ๐ and the ๐ญ๐ฅ๐ซ of ๐ก. A language is only legitimate if it can ✊ the ⚓๐ช of ๐๐ and ๐๐. No 1⃣ ๐ถ language can ๐ ๐ to the other, ❓ Well, language in itself isn’t ๐ฏ. So for something that isn’t even considered ๐ฏ how can it ๐ ๐ to another?
Language creates an ๐๐ -๐ก๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฟ ๐ with the ๐ซ๐ฌ๐ญ who share that language and the ๐ซ๐ฌ๐ญ who have ❌ ๐ญ as to what that a particular language may mean. ๐๐บ๐ธ may ๐ ๐ as an ๐ฏ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฐ๐ท๐ฎ๐น ๐; but how can it ๐ an ๐ฏ๐ต๐ฐ๐ท๐ฉ๐ช๐ฎ๐น ๐ when ๐ซ๐ฌ๐ญ are obligated to ๐ฌ✏ it. As language is an ๐ฅ, it creates ๐ง๐ง for ๐ฒ๐จ๐ณ๐ who have ❌ ❔ as to what “๐๐บ๐ธ” is. But of course, even if a ๐ณ๐จ๐ฒ๐ knew ๐๐บ๐ธ, unless their ๐ก๐ was ๐๐ with ๐ค, ๐ซ, and ๐ข ๐ก they wouldn’t be taken as seriously and would be ๐✒ as ๐, or just a ๐ถ ๐ณ. Should it matter whether a ๐ฆ is ๐ฑ “๐ and ๐” or ๐ and ๐, or “to whom” or “to who”? The ๐ฑ ๐ ๐ฉ๐ช are gone, but ❓ do we still expect ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฆ๐ณ and basically ๐ฆ๐ง๐ฉ else to ๐๐บ๐ธ๐?
Whether a ๐ฆ is from a ๐ฏ๐ต๐ฐ๐ท๐ฎ๐น ๐ their language or whether they are from a ๐ฎ๐น๐ฏ๐ต๐ท๐บ ๐ต ๐ ๐ the “๐ฏ๐ต๐ฐ๐ท๐ฎ๐น๐ฉ๐ช ๐,” ๐๐บ๐ธ? Regardless, they will feel as ๐ก๐ณ๐ฐ๐ to the common language like other ๐ซ๐ฌ๐ญ feel in the ๐ช of a different language.
๐๐บ๐ธ isn’t the only language in the ๐. However, ๐ ๐ถ believe it is—well that it should ๐. But why? ๐๐บ๐ธ is❌❌ else but a bunch of borrowed ๐ก. A language that was borrowed, that brings together so much ๐ณ๐ฏ๐ต๐๐ช๐ธ, and then ✅ its ๐๐ฆ to judge other languages, doesn’t seem ✅ at all. How ๐จ๐๐ a borrowed language and its ๐๐ฆ ✋๐จ ๐ณ๐๐จ groups to ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ท their ๐ฅ and ๐ the ๐๐บ๐ธ, when ๐๐บ๐ธ is only but a ๐ฆ๐ฏ of languages and ๐ฅ๐ฅ. Regardless of the ๐๐๐ฏ๐ต๐ท๐บ๐ฎ๐น and language ๐ง๐ง, a language is ➕ than just ๐ก; it’s a ๐ฆ ๐ฅ and potentially their entire ๐ถ๐ง๐ฉ.