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

[Emma May Smith]

There might be some skepticism about this, but I don't think qo is a bigraph.

I'm not 100% positive, but I've spent a great deal of time looking at this word structure and I suspect what is happening is that q is commonly prepended to tokens beginning with "o" and thus it resembles a bigraph, but the "q" does not require "o" to follow. There are times when "q" goes in front of other things.

No scepticism here. This is exactly what I'm trying to demonstrate. So far I have three pieces of evidence:

1) [q] and [o] both appear in single glyph sequences, specifically f76r.
2) [q] appears before [e], [y], [k], and some other glyphs about 100 times.
3) The most common words beginning [q] mostly also occur without [q].

I think (hope!) that the idea of [qo] being a bigraph should, at best, be considered an interesting hypothesis. But the alternative hypothesis seems to be stronger.

(Also, does nobody have any comments about the other points raised in my blog post about '[q] triplets'? There's an observation about how the first glyph of the plain form governs the frequency of the [o] and [q] forms. It's fascinating, I promise.)