Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA21443 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 2 May 2002 03:27:07 +0100 Message-ID: <20020502022149.61272.qmail@web14401.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 19:21:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Potocki <tomaszjanpotocki@yahoo.com> Subject: Q to douglas wilson To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk In-Reply-To: <200205011645.RAA20548@alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
"Douglas P. Wilson" <dp-wilson@shaw.ca>
posted the following:
"I have a little computer program that randomly
replaces a few real
words in
a text file with morphologically-opaque non-words,
word-like sequences
of
letters that are not in English or any other (common)
language. These
non-words are often easily understood from context
alone, and "feel"
like
part of one's recognition vocabulary, although they
certainly are not."
Hello Douglas--
thats very interesting. Do you know -- have you done
such a study -- What is the maximum percentage of
"real words" in a text that can be substituted with
"fake words" before not only the fake words, but the
whole text stops making sense? ("Blah bing zang glook
malooff cluck" is an English sentence in which 100% of
the words were substituted with meaningless jibberish.
neither it nor the sentence can be understood. so
there seems to be a limit here).
many thanks
tom potocki
(I have no quote from clausevitz) ;-)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 02 2002 - 03:38:58 BST