Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA21443 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Thu, 2 May 2002 03:27:07 +0100 Message-ID: <email@example.com> Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 19:21:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Potocki <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Q to douglas wilson To: email@example.com In-Reply-To: <200205011645.RAA20548@alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
"Douglas P. Wilson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
posted the following:
"I have a little computer program that randomly
replaces a few real
a text file with morphologically-opaque non-words,
letters that are not in English or any other (common)
non-words are often easily understood from context
alone, and "feel"
part of one's recognition vocabulary, although they
certainly are not."
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).
(I have no quote from clausevitz) ;-)
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 02 2002 - 03:38:58 BST