glyph [d] as a substitute for [p] and [f]

[nablator]

If that is true, no conclusion or implication would reveal us anything. If you have a suggestion I would love to hear that.

A quick-and-dirty count gives the following results:

To remove formatting from TT_ivtff_v0a.txt in paragraphs:
grep ",.P" TT_ivtff_v0a.txt | cut -c18- | sed "s/<->/./g;s/<$>//g;s/ //g;s/\.$//g"| grep "^[pf]" > ttpfstart.txt
grep ",.P" TT_ivtff_v0a.txt | cut -c18- | sed "s/<->/./g;s/<$>//g;s/ //g;s/\.$//g"| grep "[pf]" > ttpf.txt
grep ",.P" TT_ivtff_v0a.txt | cut -c18- | sed "s/<->/./g;s/<$>//g;s/ //g;s/\.$//g"| grep -v "[pf]" > ttnopf.txt

To compute the frequency (as a percentage) of "d" among EVA characters including "." in paragraphs:
awk -F "d" "{ll += length-1; cc += NF-1} END {print 100*cc/ll}" < ttnopf.txt
5.81984
awk -F "d" "{ll += length-1; cc += NF-1} END {print 100*cc/ll}" < ttpf.txt
6.21357
awk -F "d" "{ll += length-1; cc += NF-1} END {print 100*cc/ll}" < ttpfstart.txt
6.24086

(length-1 because I am using these UNIX tools on Windows: every line has a cr beside lf.)

These small frequency variations (5.8% in lines without p or f vs 6.2% in lines with p or f) do not tell us much, but they certainly do not suggest that d is a good candidate for a substitution of p and f.

A more plausible hypothesis IMHO than a substitution would be that p and f are inserted (no idea why, and reading discussions about "Neal keys" did not help). The (weak) evidence for this is that removing p and f very often yields words that exist elsewhere in the VMs.

After removal of p and f in ttpf.txt the frequency of d is 6.45%.