Stop being analitical!

[Emma May Smith]

Your observation is valid but your hypothesis isn't. The problem you face is that the word statistics for the line starts are often different from the main text (especially in Currier B). It's unsafe to use an observation for a single glyph when there many other differences. Any theory should attempt to account not only for the use of gallow glyphs in this position, but also d, y, s.

It seems that you are talking about something I didn't say in this thread. In this thread I only said something about frequencies for the word types in the VMS. Similar word types occur with similar frequencies. There is no exception for this observation. Even some chained words for which no similar words exists behave as expected. They occur only once. Therefore the conclusion that similar words depend in some way on each other is inescapable. 

The usage of t and k is not more then an interesting detail. It is interesting since at first sight we would not expect that qotar and qotal are less frequent then qokar and qokal. I have tried to explain why this word types behave this way. But this didn't mean that I have to explain every detail. The frequencies for the word types differ for Currier A and B. Therefore, if you want to go into all the details you have to distinguish between Currier A and B, between different line positions and between labels and normal text anyway. The important point is that all the details didn't change  the overall picture for the VMS. It is possible to see a mountain even if the mountain has  some bumps and slacks.

Torsten, you're making two different points and it's important to state them explicitly:
1) that the difference between the occurrence of k and t is due to the space available and the space each glyph takes; and
2) that there is a relationship between the frequencies of similar words.

On 1), this is the point I was addressing in my last comment. Your observation on their occurrences at the start of lines is not sufficient to support your hypothesis that this is due to their shapes. It is a supposition which is contradicted by a simple observation: both k and t increase in frequency when o is added and t only declines once q is also added. Your hypothesis would need t to become less frequent once no longer at the start of a word.

On 2), I agree that there are relationships in the frequencies of similar words. But different sets of related words have different relative levels. There is not one single pattern, but multiple patterns. These patterns are seemingly determined by the glyphs present in a word. They are not "bumps and slacks" but important aspects of what's actually happening. They are important because they can disprove several theories of how the text was created.