I can't directly answer your question, but it reminds me of how as English speakers we essentially ignore the particle-like words (I've forgotten what we call them in English atm) like "the, a, in, on, at, of" and focus more on the meaning-heavy components of a sentence.

it makes sense though I guess because in a sentence certain words carry much more value than others.

The, a, it, in, of

have pretty much 0 value. That is to say, in the sentence "There is a bag on the table"
The words "bag" and "table" are the only words which really have any value. If all you said was those two words... you'd probably get your point across... if all you said was "There is a on the" you'd get a big fat "What?".

When I'm SRSing, I try to make sure to pay attention to the sentences' particles, depending on what kind of cards I'm doing. In general I just try to make sure that I've internalized how the particles are used in the sentences when I see them, for grammar cards I'm extra picky. That way when I encounter similar usages in the future it's instantaneous, part of the 'learn, master, and dissolve' process. I've never had cause to, but if I were specifically doing particle cards, then I might try experimenting with colours/highlights/cloze deletion of particles...

Particles aren't all that important in casual texts anyway, which is why many of them are removed in casual speak. As you start reading more convoluted texts, like mentat said, you will notice them.

Nukemarine wrote:

This article from Antimoon seems relevant

http://www.antimoon.com/how/readhow.htm

You can understand conversation and books without fully grasping particles, so your mind wonders to the main points. It becomes impossible to speak and write without a grasp of connectors and particles.

yeah i've read that one before but it was good to refresh on it.