I computed some numbers that are certainly different from what Stolfi intended: not all his definitions are clear to me.
I considered all the words in Takahashi's transcription (labels included).
I counted as a table all sh,ch,e sequences: I tried excluding those adjacent to gallows, but this produces much lower numbers for "words with tables".
The four sets described by Stolfi have similar numbers, but in Currier A gallows words are less common than words with no gallows, while in Currier B they are more common (47% Currier A, 53% Currier B).
In all cases, the presence of tables seems slightly correlated with that of gallows.
I considered all the words in Takahashi's transcription (labels included).
I counted as a table all sh,ch,e sequences: I tried excluding those adjacent to gallows, but this produces much lower numbers for "words with tables".
The four sets described by Stolfi have similar numbers, but in Currier A gallows words are less common than words with no gallows, while in Currier B they are more common (47% Currier A, 53% Currier B).
In all cases, the presence of tables seems slightly correlated with that of gallows.
Code:
______________________________ all CUR.A CUR.B
(blue) tables gallows 12079 3229 7782
(orange) noTables gallows 7255 2206 4799
(yellow) tables noGallows 8825 3072 5435
(green) noTables noGallows 8946 3069 5692![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)