03-04-2018, 11:27 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-04-2018, 11:50 PM by Emma May Smith.)
JKP's first objection is right, but misses a caveat which I may have not made plain (in that post, though in earlier posts it is stated). I'm talking about 'valid' words which have at least a few tokens (typically five). So there may be words beginning [q] with one or two tokens that don't have [o] forms, but the commonest words do.
The fifty most common words beginning [q] all have [o] forms with at least five tokens. [qokeed] is the highest without, as it has 15 tokens but [okeed] only has 3. The highest with no [o] form is [qokl]: it has 9 tokens and [okl] doesn't exist.
If we count all [q] forms with at least five tokens, we find that 97% of them also have an [o] form with at least five tokens. Thus my idea is a generalization and not an iron law.
Second, the part "and it is not enough for the plain word without either [q] or [o] to exist", refers to the relationship between plain forms and [q] forms. There aren't many words which have both a valid [q] form and a valid plain form, but no valid [o] form. I could only find five exceptions in about 125 words.
The clearest formulation for the rules would be:
1) there must be a valid plain form for there to be a valid [o] form, but the existence of a plain form does not demand an [o] form; and
2) there must be a valid [o] form for there to be a valid [q] form, but the existence of an [o] form does not demand an [q] form.
Even simpler: you can't have [q] without [o], or [o] without plain; but you can have plain without [o], and [o] without [q].
The fifty most common words beginning [q] all have [o] forms with at least five tokens. [qokeed] is the highest without, as it has 15 tokens but [okeed] only has 3. The highest with no [o] form is [qokl]: it has 9 tokens and [okl] doesn't exist.
If we count all [q] forms with at least five tokens, we find that 97% of them also have an [o] form with at least five tokens. Thus my idea is a generalization and not an iron law.
Second, the part "and it is not enough for the plain word without either [q] or [o] to exist", refers to the relationship between plain forms and [q] forms. There aren't many words which have both a valid [q] form and a valid plain form, but no valid [o] form. I could only find five exceptions in about 125 words.
The clearest formulation for the rules would be:
1) there must be a valid plain form for there to be a valid [o] form, but the existence of a plain form does not demand an [o] form; and
2) there must be a valid [o] form for there to be a valid [q] form, but the existence of an [o] form does not demand an [q] form.
Even simpler: you can't have [q] without [o], or [o] without plain; but you can have plain without [o], and [o] without [q].