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 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 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.