3.418 railroads? emoticons? (47)
Willard McCarty (MCCARTY@VM.EPAS.UTORONTO.CA)
Fri, 1 Sep 89 19:59:24 EDT
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 3, No. 418. Friday, 1 Sep 1989.
(1) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 89 10:16:28 EST (7 lines)
From: Johnfox@RCN
Subject: Railroads
(2) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 89 13:45:09 CDT (8 lines)
From: "Kevin L. Cope" <ENCOPE@LSUVM>
Subject: Flexibility of Emoticons
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 89 10:16:28 EST
From: Johnfox@RCN
Subject: Railroads
For research that I am conducting, would like to contact by e-mail
individuals who have worked on railroads before 1980.
Please respond to me directly: John Fox@TAYLOR.RCC.RCN.EDU.
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------12----
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 89 13:45:09 CDT
From: "Kevin L. Cope" <ENCOPE@LSUVM>
Subject: Flexibility of Emoticons
Natalie Maynor tells us that we may need to develop a set of diacritical
marks to qualify the states of mind expressed via e-mail emoticons.
Could this technique be extended so as to develop the equivalent of
dialects (regional or otherwise) or accents in the transmission of e-mail?
[Editor's note. A friend recently pointed out to me that debates are
sometimes transcribed with indications as to how the audience reacted
(thunderous applause). Evidently this is because the transcription would
otherwise fail to communicate an important aspect of the event in
question. An e-mail discussion is necessarily deprived of those signs we
often give during a face-to-face event, such as impatience, anger,
agreement, and so forth. These, my friend suggested, could be embedded
in e-mail messages as stage-directions. Others, however, have pointed out
that language itself, if properly employed, is enough. Is this so? Isn't
it true that an e-mail discussion has conversational elements (unlike a
letter, say) and so is a genre that requires something more than words
-- as distinguished from metatextual commentary -- can supply? W.M.]