{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03055229142185664, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.916666666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The invariant code-significance of lexical items

In this paper I would make three points. First, I will propose a distinction between the linguistic (code) significance of a word and its various sensemeanings. Second, I wish to demonstrate that an apparently polysemousambiguous word like game may yet have a consistent code-significance. In other words, I might claim that such a word has an invariant semantic form, but my use of the term semantic would be so different from its customary logical, set-theoretical Interpretation that I will deliberately avoid it in this discussion. Third, I will illustrate a means of modeling the code-significance of words in terms oficonic forms rather than in terms of concepts, classes, or sets of objects, or sets of necessary and sufficient conditions (i.e., the typical characterizations of sense-meaning).