(31-03-2018, 05:40 PM)Anton wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
I'll bet that "et et", though, would turn out to be lower than expected, since it's basically an invalid biword (sorry David!) in Latin.
I don't want to throw too many wrenches in this but...
In Latin, yes, one would not expect to find et et, but in medieval scribal Latin it can certainly occur as et et if there is a tail on the second "t" so that it looks like EVA-r. Then it becomes "eter" an abbreviation for "eternum/aeternum".
If there is a tail or macron on the e and a tail on the t, then "et et" is read as Latin or French "et entre".
Ligatures and abbreviations were the norm in the middle ages.
I think it's worthwhile to run the statistical tests. One never knows which ones might yield helpful information... but assumptions that apply to modern languages that are based on alphabets may not work on medieval languages in which the scribal abbreviations were as much a part of the "alphabet" as individual letters.