I expected the article to dive a bit deeper into natural language understanding, identifying regexes in natural language and how those constructs are used to bu

I expected the article to dive a bit deeper into natural language understanding, identifying regexes in natural language and how those constructs are used to build grammars higher in the hierarchy. I should really get around to read more on this, but it quickly explodes in complexity. Suddenly I'm on wikipedia reading about the analytic hierarchy of mathematics. All the while hardly anyone seems to expect that english should adhere to formal grammars. It would be really interesting instead to only use the concepts that have been introduced. So, what's the bare minimum to be expected from a speaker prior to such a text? Purely appending composition, I guess, enumerations, starting with 'yes' and _. nothing. Typically the first word in a conversation is a greeting. Hello world! On the other hand, there's an obvious relation between 'I' and '1'. It's interesting that a lot of language can be built up so that a sentence can be understood at each stage of its build (with a bit of abusing the language). Words then are learned simply by association of being close to other known words, so "hello" is implicitly expanded to a whole context. Which in turn is learned from gestures. And continuous repetition is very important. Feedback. ie. success is learned from quieting a crying baby down. Words are learned by echoing back wkrds that are heard repeatedly (rather phonemes, so I would start with "hi", not "hello"). And a lot of repetition is own sounds, to learn sounding at all and to not forget them again. And later, hole ideas have to be repeated again and again and refined ... which I guess is why I am writing all this. Although, "simulation" allows us to do all this quietly and heuristics and proofs can significantly simplify the process. I guess that can be linked to context free and higher grammars. And because of the repition I appreciate this post.