🚀 go-pugleaf

John Woodgate wrote in message ...
><7j05eb$rml@ask.diku.dk>, Klaus Ole Kristiansen <klaus@diku.dk>
>inimitably wrote:
>>John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>>I see a difference between 'pictographic' and 'symbolic'. What I mean by
>>>the former is quasi-realistic representation of objects etc., as in a
>>>strip-cartoon, whereas 'symbolic' implies a stylization, as you see on
>>>the controls of a car or icons on a computer display.
>>
>>That is not the difference.  A pictogram means what it shows, a symbol
>>means something else.  A picture of a fish, however stylized, meaning
>>"fish sold here" is a pictogram.  A picture of a fish, however realistic,
>>meaning "I am a Christian" is a symbol.
>>
>>Klaus O K
>
>But there is a complete continuum between a photograph - a painting - a
>cartoon - a hieroglyph - a modern Chinese character. At what degree of
>stylization does something change from being a pictogram to a symbol.


When it is not recognisable in any reasonable way as the concept it
represents.

Show me a picture of a fish that says unambiguously 'christian'.

Egyptian hieroglyphics were either used for their phonetoic value, or as
true pictograms, making taht a mixed system. Even the ancestors of hanzi
bore little resemblance for the more esoteric concepts. Those that are
recognisable today were so then, and likelwise for those that aren't. As for
cartoons and photos, their status as pictogram or symbol depends on teh
meaning the viewer chooses to assign.

---
Fabian
Rule One: Question the unquestionable,
ask the unaskable, eff the ineffable,
think the unthinkable, and screw the inscrutable.