Disclaimer: I've never studied any of this stuff so take anything of what I say with more than a grain of salt and probably a bottle of cabernet sauvignon to boot.

Colleen - I think you're right since good grammar necessarily involves proper syntax (word placement). If you look at the original sample Andi provided, the passage is grammatically and syntactically correct but spelled incorrectly.However, it is possible to have proper syntax without absolutely proper grammar (e.g., use of punctuation, prepositions, etc).

Apparently (as seen in the example provided by Andi), the human brain deciphers words through 2 filtering mechanisms.

The first is to look at the entire word, with the first and last letters as well as key "anchor" sounds being most important. Another example of this beyond the passage with the mis-spellings would be to strip out all non-essential vowels because it's consonants that tend to define words phonically. I think a number of rapid communication transcripts used by the military in the 50's and 60's did just this.

The second is to look at the context of the words relative to each other. The niceties of correct punctuation and use of prepositions are less important than which words are placed next to each other. I think that in many languages word placement is paramount to conveying meaning, rather than grammar per se. This is, after all, one reason why we can learn other languages that are outside our "genetic" language tree (e.g., Indo-European vs. Altaic vs. Semitic etc.) that have radically different rules of grammar. But this is also why it's difficult to learn languages in different branches - idioms / idiomatic phrases are typically the hardest aspects of language to learn. And of course idioms/ idiomatic phrases are most dependent on the placement / context of the component words. Perhaps another example of this mechanism would be the infamous word-association exercise. No word is really "alone" in our understanding and perception of it.

In any case, this is where linguistics becomes philosophy. One could argue that no single word has an absolute meaning unless it is in the presence of at least one other word. It's akin to the notion in quantum mechanics that reality does not exist unless you actually observe that reality (in other words the act of observation causes reality to occur).

Well, that's my useless thought for the day.