From "decryption" to "translation"

[MarcoP]

...

So Gvords are very, very popular to start a sentence, for whatever reason.

Next we check if paragraph-initial vords exhibit high degree of uniqueness. It turns out that (in the said folio range) 51,9% of all paragraph-initial vords are unique. We must be careful about possible inflexions, which may make these vords "not-that-unique", but generally this looks like what is a high figure. It would be less common, I think, to use unique verbs or unique words of other parts of speech for beginning of your sentence, so it is reasonable to suppose that paragraph-initial vords are, in their majority, nouns. Since they are mostly Gvords, then that makes gallows a noun-marker, be that explicit (like an article) or implicit (like a reference to a particular nomenclator), does not matter.

Now we move on to labels, the discussion of which in this thread stimulated this idea. We discussed that labels - at least some of them - do not look like plain designators. Instead they look like referrers. But very many labels start with "o", then immediately followed by gallows. Considering that a Gvord is a noun and the label is a referrer, this makes the "o" prefix a referral operator, something like "to", "related to" or "for", "intended for", "appropriate for". With this approach, the notorious "otol" is no more "otol", but instead it is "o tol" - that is, "related to tol". Notice that I don't touch the question of whether "o" is "to" or "for" in English, or "zu" or "fur" in German, I simply suggest a relational operator.
..

Hi Anton,
what you are doing here seems promising to me. This is something that can really produce new insights!

I would like to point out Emma May Smith's You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
Grove words are paragraph-initial Gvords. These words appear to be the result of adding an initial gallows to an ordinary word. Similar observations were made by You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (and John Grove himself I think).

In particular Emma observes that:

• "the structure of some [Grove] words, such as <fchoctheody, kchdaldy, pcholky, tchokedy> suggest that the characters immediately after the gallows are part of a ‘Fore’ section (as discussed in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) as so should not have anything in front of them. The same goes for a small number of Grove Words where the second character is <y>, which usually does not come in the middle of a word."
  
• more Grove words match ordinary words by removing the initial gallows, rather than adding the o- prefix. [i.e Grove word gX is likely related with word X rather than ogX]
  

Another point that could support Emma's analysis (I am not sure it is mentioned in her post) is that Grove words averagely are longer than ordinary Gvords. I think others have observed this, but I cannot find a reference at the  moment. I suggest independently checking the correctness of this statement.