[foobar_]

> Every glyph includes a number of binding points, one for each of its arguments, the semantic roles involved in its meaning. For instance, the glyph glossed as eat has two binding points—one for the thing consumed and one for the consumer. The glyph glossed as (be) fish has only one, the fish. Often we give glosses more like “X eat Y”, so as to give names for the binding points (X is eater, Y is eaten).

Seems so ... even in logic programming we have logic glyphs. Maths is full of glyphs with connectors, especially the integral sign.

<bank-glyph>->50<money-glyph> is sorta analogous to bank->withdraw(50) ... (HN seems to be removing emojis)

This makes sense ... is this how chinese words operate ? Its logical and it makes sense why early languages were logogram based. In normal languages like english it seems the "connection" points are separate and split into separate words.

Has anyone done research on commonly used words in code ?

[saizai]

UNLWS can definitely be described as being based on "predicate calculus" (as in formal logic). I personally have never felt it to be a very apt or helpful description — I think of it more in terms of Lakoff-style "frames". However, every glyph in UNLWS, including the all-pervasive minimal glyph (a dot, which is implicitly in any line), is a predicate.

FWIW, no this isn't how Chinese works — and it isn't ideographic. Hanzi (& Japanese kanji) have both semantic and rhyme hinting components, and aside from a few words that are nearly minimal in their use of radicals (the components), are generally vastly underspecified to get the meaning of the grapheme unless you know it.