@JKP: Thank you for your posting on this subject. Since your posting from 2018 has a very recent follow-up and because in my research I do not agree with your conclusions, it seems good to share some points.
I use the text without labels. I've counted
q: 5433 x
qo: 5300 x = 98%
q not qo: 133 x = 2% !
Of the last 133x [q] [not qo] is followed by :
[e] 66 x
[c] 19 x
[k] 19 x
and then 29x on other different letters.
Therefore my conclusions are:
the [qo] is dominant and is a coherent enitity (probably represents in plain text 1 value)
the [q] can not be separated form [qo]: The 133 times are errors and bad transcripts. (there are more arguments but too extensive for here)
That observation is important because from there we can go forward. Keeping all options open, for me that is, does not lead to a specific direction and it is impossible to follow up on all possible options. Anyway that is my way of working.
Then, you speak of [qo] followed by another [o]. Yes that seems to be true in 32 cases.
That is only 0,6% ! and therefore (there are more arguments but too extensive for here)
are also mistakes and have no specific meaning to me. (Which could be made deliberate, but that's another theory)
I use the text without labels. I've counted
q: 5433 x
qo: 5300 x = 98%
q not qo: 133 x = 2% !
Of the last 133x [q] [not qo] is followed by :
[e] 66 x
[c] 19 x
[k] 19 x
and then 29x on other different letters.
Therefore my conclusions are:
the [qo] is dominant and is a coherent enitity (probably represents in plain text 1 value)
the [q] can not be separated form [qo]: The 133 times are errors and bad transcripts. (there are more arguments but too extensive for here)
That observation is important because from there we can go forward. Keeping all options open, for me that is, does not lead to a specific direction and it is impossible to follow up on all possible options. Anyway that is my way of working.
Then, you speak of [qo] followed by another [o]. Yes that seems to be true in 32 cases.
That is only 0,6% ! and therefore (there are more arguments but too extensive for here)
are also mistakes and have no specific meaning to me. (Which could be made deliberate, but that's another theory)