[Text] word starting [q] must have a valid counterpart word starting [o]

[davidjackson]

This post in entirely based upon the research of Emma Smith. However I feel that she has identified an important grammatical structure and so post her theory here for community members to discuss. I will leave this thread open for a couple of days before posting the poll so that anyone can run independent statistical analysis to prove or destroy the theory.
Emma suggests :

words beginning with [q] have two particular relationships. The first is that a word starting [q] must have a valid counterpart word starting [o], and it is not enough for the plain word without either [q] or [o] to exist. Conversely, even if the [o] form exists, that does not mean that the [q] form will.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.