(01-09-2019, 10:26 AM)Koen G wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Nice! Is this like a zoomed-in version of Rene's graphs?
Basically yes but the data is different: I used unmodified ZL2 with all special characters in the Excel sheet and "my" transcription for the image (it doesn't matter much, the differences are small).
I don't know how to normalize the results. Of course short pages can only share a small percentage of the total vocabulary of two pages when the other page is much longer. A non-symmetrical version with the percentage of vocabulary of page i that can be found in page j would also suffer from the same issue when there is a large differences in size between pages.
Quote:What if this exercise were done only with rare words? Then you would specifically look for themes common to certain pages.
I would be very surprised if vocabulary (rare or not) has anything to do with themes and meaning. Many attempts to correlate vords with themes and illustrations and find grammatical structures would have showed better results than basically nothing. Currier was right: vords are not words.
FWIW my interpretation of what these tables and also MATTR show is that the author(s) strived in most Currier A "language" pages to maximize finesse and elegance, the only exceptions (where MATTR drops) is when they were doing "challenges" avoiding some common pattern(s) or repeating them as much as possible. They finally got bored with the relatively slow process of generating nearly optimal vords (optimized for size and variable constraints) in Q13 and to a lesser extent Q20, they relied much more on the reuse of vords and patterns (a.k.a. autocopy) to finish the work more quickly.