sh_ and ch_ compose the same words

[Torsten]

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 

If you find it more useful to look at a number or at a chart than into the MS itself this is not a problem. It is only necessary to count some word tokens. The correlation coefficient between the token frequencies for <chedy> and <shedy> for all folios is +0.84 and the correlation coefficient between the token frequencies for <chey> and <shey> for all folios is +0.67. 

Pearson's Correlation(chedy[501],shedy[426]): +0.84 (n=225 folios,p=5.44E-50)
   

Pearson's Correlation(chey[344], shey[283]) : +0.67 (n=225 folios,p=6.12E-31)
   

Pearson's Correlation(chol[396], shol[186]) : +0.44 (n=225 folios,p=3.4E-12)
   

Pearson's Correlation(cheey[174],sheey[144]): +0.4  (n=225 folios,p=3.09E-10)
   

Pearson's Correlation(cho[68],   sho[130])  : +0.3  (n=225 folios)
Pearson's Correlation(cheol[172],sheol[114]): +0.45 (n=225 folios)
Pearson's Correlation(chy[155],  shy[104])  : +0.28 (n=225 folios)
Pearson's Correlation(chor[219], shor[97])  : +0.22 (n=225 folios)
Pearson's Correlation(cheedy[59],sheedy[84]): +0.63 (n=225 folios)
...

This results allow the conclusion that the chance for a 'sh'-word to occur on a folio increases as more often the corresponding 'ch'-word appears on that folio. Keep in mind that this doesn't mean that 'sh'-words solely depend on there 'ch'-counterparts or that 'sh' and 'ch' words are the same. It only means that they depend in some way on each other.

Additionally I have calculated the token frequencies for all 612 ch/sh word pairs for all folios. The resulting correlation coefficient is +0.55. To make comparison easier I have also calculated the correlation coefficient for the word frequencies for all 612 ch/sh word pairs for the whole MS. This correlation coefficient is +0.93.

Pearson's Correlation(count(chWords@folios),count(shWords@folios)): +0.55 (n=225 folios*612 word pairs=137700,p=too close to zero to calculate)
   

Pearson's Correlation(count(chWords@VMS), count(shWords@VMS)): +0.93 (n=612 word pairs,p=4.54E-268)
   

We all talk about the same manuscript no matter what we think about it. It is hard to believe that it should be a problem to agree to facts like that the only instance of <rolchey> and the only instance of <rolshey> can be found on folio You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. or that the only instance of <sheolkain> and the only instance of <cheolkain> can be found on folio You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

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.

Your gut feelings are correct. Your chance to explain the usage of 'ch' and 'sh' in the MS as a result of chance is zero*.

*(The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for the word frequencies for all 612 ch/sh word pairs for the whole MS is p=4.54E-268 or p=0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000454).