I would think not...they are abstract. When someone tells me that they are happy or sad or angry. I have to extrapolate what that must mean out of my own personal experience. We can see another person's tears, but are they tears of joy or tears of sadness?
I'm not sure I follow you here. If someone tells me they are happy or sad or angry, that is not abstract. I agree with that, if I've understood you correctly. If I simply see a person crying, I do have to interpret the tears based on my own experience. I agree there, also. I don't agree necessarily that emotions are abstract. I would say that they can be depicted abstractly by removing (or avoiding) context. I don't generally worry much about semantics, but I think this one's worth discussing.

I think it's important to note that tears of any sort for any reason are inherently emotive. I can't say the same for a window, or a rock. It's the human element. People are inherently emotive. (Duh. LOL) Objects are not (usually) inherently emotive, but can become that way because of human experience. (i.e. a crying person is emotive to (nearly) everyone, while a hairbrush is emotive only if my experiences and memories make it so.)

Too much heavy thinking. The merlot is crying out to me.