I was thinking of the lack of conjunctions in the sample, which increases the complexity IMO - like a variable for each operator result in an algebraic expressi

I was thinking of the lack of conjunctions in the sample, which increases the complexity IMO - like a variable for each operator result in an algebraic expression, or CFG without BNF. It's needlessly tedious, it doesn't map to the concepts in mind - and I can't believe non-English speakers lack these mental concepts (nor that their languages lack them). And this line: [non-cross-translatable words]. These include key words of Anglo culture, such as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, ‘fair’ and ‘rude’, ‘fact’ and ‘evidence’. Like apple-eaters, do only English-speakers know right and wrong? I realize that that allusion itself imports the religous background of English; and I can believe that _precise_ definitions could vary between cultures - even legal systems differ in what "evidence" is permissible in court... but is the casual, non-technical meaning really that different between cultures? Or... am I just so immersed in English that its assumptions are transparent to me, like a fish who can't understand "out of water"? I guess I would like to see specifically how some of those 6 examples are non-cross-translatable...