Common experience can be inferred from utterances, but difficult until stated, e.g. "the pleasing coolness on the reverse side of the pillow." http://lib.ru/ADA

Common experience can be inferred from utterances, but difficult until stated, e.g. "the pleasing coolness on the reverse side of the pillow." http://lib.ru/ADAMS/liff.txt http://lib.ru/ADAMS/liff.txt Similar to TFA's compression, if utterances are messages, can we decode them? (i.e. is it possible, not whether computationally feasible). We need sufficient redundancy, so for example, a one-time pad encoding is impossible to decode (each message is encoded using random information, which sender and receiver both know, that information being shared offline/out-of-band). So, human beings do have shared offline information, that TFA discusses. Unlike a one-time pad, this information is reused repeatedly. TFA claims the amount of reuse is insufficient for statistical inference, and argues that variations (like bag, suitcase, briefxase) will not be picked up as the same kind of thing (container), thus reducing the amount of reuse. I think statistically inferring this commonality is feasible, from messages like putting in, taking out sometning etc. Another argument made is that the message must be perfectly resolved. This is far from true in human communication, where ambiguity is rampant in practice. People routinely clarify as they talk, sometimes realizing later there is a misunderstanding - implicitly, by stating their understanding, sometimes explicitly asking for repetition or clarification. Part of the skill of written communication, where the reader can't seek clarification, is to strive for clarity, describe the same concept in sifferent ways, give examples - and for very skilled writers, to subtly calibrate readers for the next idea in the process of communicating the previous idea. But TFA is basically right, that there is a limit to how much shared background information can be inferred from utterances. One example is that technical experts are difficult to understand for humans without that technical background, and mere terminology isn't enough. Another example is observational comedy, where the auidence understands, though it has never been said before. (from DNA) ABILENE (adj.) Descriptive of the pleasing coolness on the reverse side of the pillow. Now, this effect perhaps could be inferred from some characters in stories flipping their pillow on a hot night, or might require a simulation of physics and physiology - a big ask from utterances! KENTUCKEY (adv.) Fitting exactly and satisfyingly. The cardboard box that slides neatly into an exact space in a garage, or the last book which exactly fills a bookshelf, is said to fit 'real nice and kentuckey'. Some words are funny because of how they sound or their feel in the mouth. Again, difficult to infer, if you have no mouth. I think "kentuckey" is apt in the above because of "tuck", and "ken" somehow makes it funny, but I'm not sure why (maybe a statistical method would know why?). I do seen why the southern phrase at the end is funny.