Torsten, I deliberately kept it simple to keep it understandable, and the argument does not change if the factor is not 2 but 1.4 or some other similar number.
You still did not understand my post, because it precisely argues why it should be expected that there are such exceptions where sh words are more frequent than ch words.
The main point was, in any case, that the statistics you present are related to the full text of the MS, whereas you then link it to an explanation for behaviour 'per page', which is then presented as a fact, while it is not more than a speculation.
This speculation is not supported by the outcomes of the queries at voynichese.com
The particular line-initial behaviour of such words is also not explained at all.
Finally, the main purpose of the original post, that sh-words tend to be shorter than ch-words is also not explained at all.
This now seems to have been measured to be 0.3 on average.
The real question about this is whether this number is actually significant.
That means: is this evidence that there is a reason behind it, or is this something that could happen as a result of chance?
My gut feeling is that is looks significant, but gut feelings are extremely dangerous when it comes to statistics.
You still did not understand my post, because it precisely argues why it should be expected that there are such exceptions where sh words are more frequent than ch words.
The main point was, in any case, that the statistics you present are related to the full text of the MS, whereas you then link it to an explanation for behaviour 'per page', which is then presented as a fact, while it is not more than a speculation.
This speculation is not supported by the outcomes of the queries at voynichese.com
The particular line-initial behaviour of such words is also not explained at all.
Finally, the main purpose of the original post, that sh-words tend to be shorter than ch-words is also not explained at all.
This now seems to have been measured to be 0.3 on average.
The real question about this is whether this number is actually significant.
That means: is this evidence that there is a reason behind it, or is this something that could happen as a result of chance?
My gut feeling is that is looks significant, but gut feelings are extremely dangerous when it comes to statistics.