❓ 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.
First, I'd like to compliment you on taking on the challenge of writing in Emoji - It actually took me a while to read! I love the detail and time you put into actually trying to make each and every Emoji describe what you were trying to say. I think you have to give yourself more credit -- you did a really good job making sense of just Emoji's! I think the fact that you used Standard English was interesting, especially since we have been debating why authors use standard instead of another dialect. In this case, I think using any other dialect/language would've made this extremely confusing, so the standard english was a good choice for using in between Emoji's. However, I also really like the topic you chose to address within your passage pertaining to language. It almost relates to your use of Emoji's, and both the standard english and emoji's fit in really well together! Overall, good job!
ReplyDelete