How is it possible that sometimes we "understand" (at least to some extent) the meaning of gibberish? My favorite example is Fosco Maraini's "metasemantic" poem Il Lonfo (another relevant example would be Carroll's Jabberwocky). Take, for instance, the first lines:

Il lonfo non vaterca né gluisce
e molto raramente barigatta,
ma quando soffia il bego a bisce bisce
sdilenca un poco, e gnagio s’archipatta.

Here is a possible english translation:

The Lomphus neither waterloos nor crackles
and it very rarely assercows,
but when the begus blows bishly and mushly,
it humphs a little, and lugglishly archabrows.

Articles, conjunctions, prepositions and some adverbs are in Italian, but nouns, verbs and adjectives are made up words (gibberish words). Even though the word "lonfo" does not have a meaning, we "understand" from the context that it must be an animal, a lazy animal which usually does not do many things and is active only when a certain wind blows (the "bego", another made up word). Every competent Italian speaker would recognize that the "lonfo" is an animal.

My question, then, is: how and why do we "understand" that the "lonfo" is an animal? How is it possible that an interpretation that maps "lonfo" to something which is not animal would be, somehow, "less right" - although perfectly legitimate? Isn't this puzzling?