sh_ and ch_ compose the same words

[Torsten]

Going back to the facts, words including 'ch' are roughly twice as numerous as words including 'sh'. More than that, this holds true for similar word patterns, so typically for all word types including a 'ch',  by replacing 'ch' with 'sh' one tends to finds half the number.

This is 'across the board'. It is an observation, regardless what process is at the origin of this behaviour.

You oversimplify the facts. Words including 'ch' are not always roughly twice as numerous as words including 'sh'. You probably didn't read the previous You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. arguing against such an idea. Only a number of words starting with 'ch' behave this way. But this does not hold for all words starting with 'ch' and 'sh'. I explicitly point to 49 'sh'-words that are used more frequently and name words like <sho>, <sheedy>, <she>, and <shee> as examples. Words where 'ch' and 'sh' are preceded by other characters behave differently. 'sh' is for instance less frequent after 'k' and 't' but it is not less frequent after 'd'. Also words using two instances of 'ch'/'sh' behave differently (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).

Moreover, what you write misrepresent what I say. I say that for 'sh'-word-types with at least 4 tokens the corresponding 'ch'-word exists. With other words, only for rarely used 'sh'-word-types the corresponding 'ch'-word-type is missing. Additionally I say that it is typically that the 'ch'-words are used more frequently. I didn't say that they are 'twice as numerous'. Such a statement would oversimplify the statistic results even for words starting with 'ch' and 'sh'.

There is a reason for this result. The chance for a 'sh'-word to occur on a page increases as more often the corresponding 'ch'-word appears on that page:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

This is the first time that statistics 'per page' enter the argument, so it is not based on what is written before.

I wrote "There is a reason for this result." This statement was probably not clear enough. It would be better if I had added a sentence, that the statistic result indicates "a relation between 'sh'- and 'ch'-words." and that it is necessary to explain this type of relation. 

This is where the facts end.

Again, the only suggestion for the behaviour per page is given by the outputs of voynichese.com

If you are interested in checking all 612 'ch'/'sh'-word-pairs please use the algorithm provided in my previous post or send me a message.

It is probably worth looking at them in detail to see if there is any evidence of the suggested cause. I find that there are plenty of pages where it does not hold even remotely, even for these very frequent words.

I clearly say that the chance for a 'sh'-word is increased. There is no statement about every page or that the relation between two words is the only factor. Therefore it is no surprise that it is possible to point to pages where 'shedy' is used more frequently and also to pages where 'shedy' is used less frequently than 'chedy'. You even wrote yourself that you expect this outcome: "since a single page is a much smaller sample of text, one should expect a much greater dispersion of the statistics."

The point for the links to voynichese.com is that on pages containing at least five instances of 'chedy' also the word 'shedy' can be found and that on pages containing at least five instances of 'shedy' also the word 'chedy' can be found. In the same way it is only possible to point to one folio with seven instances of 'chey' but no instance of 'shey' (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). This is what I mean with my statement "the chance for a 'sh'-word to occur on a page increases as more often the corresponding 'ch'-word appears on that page".

If it comes to 'chedy' and 'shedy' see also the paper of Montemurro and Zanette. They write: "there is a strong link between words that share a suffix, as with chedy-shedy in the group shown in Figure 2A" (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).

You further comments are obviously not based on something I have said in my previous post.