Right-branching languages are definitely easier to parse for a computer,
because you can know what kind of structure you're getting right from the
beginning and you have to remember less. I agree with what's been said about
human parsing. We don't parse in any way similar to the way compilers
usually do; we try to match the pattern of the text against a similar
pattern.

I don't think it's anything to do with the nature of the brain as a
processor, though (the brain being parallel, having associative memory,
etc.). It's more to do with the fact that compilers are rigid algorithms
designed for one task, parsing one language, while the brain's "software" is
built for learning and adapting, and parsing human languages is just one
thing that it's commonly adapted to do.

I think Lee makes a very good point. Because the nature of human languages is so
different from programming languages, having them be right-branching might
not make it any easier to parse for computers.

Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:

>  >  2)
>>  >  human brains are parallel processors, not serial programmed
>>  >  processors, and 3) human memory is associative rather than linear.
>>
>>  One thing's certain - the human brain ain't a von Neumann
>>  machine  ;)
>>
> This is indeed certain.  I would rather guess that it is a quantum
> information system.  I think that is the only way how human beings
> could have free will - which they evidently do, despite some
> philosophers claiming the opposite.


This seems a lot like wishful thinking to me. Given that completely
deterministic systems with simple foundations can produce unpredictably
complex outputs, e.g. the game of life cellular automaton, there doesn't
seem to be much reason to assume that the human brain is inherently random
and relies on quantum effects, except that it makes you feel happy that your
free will can't be predicted.