(19-02-2020, 09:32 PM)nablator wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(19-02-2020, 06:30 PM)-JKP- wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How can you measure word clustering (the relationship of words to their neighbors) without taking into account the word constistuents?Words are just nodes in a network, connected to other nodes: for the calculation to be made, no information about them other than connectivity needs to be kept. To build the network it is not necessary to decide whether EVA-qo and EVA-iin are "indivisible" or not (whatever that means), only where words are, and which words look similar enough to be considered identical.
The bolded text is the part I am having trouble with, with regard to relating these kinds of calculations to the VMS script (and medieval Latin and Indic scripts in general).
In medieval script 9lt9 and 9lt9 can mean two completely different things. One might be conlitum, the other might be comlantus. They are written the same; they are interpreted differently depending on which words are nearby. This is NORMAL in the 15th century.
The same is true of this symbol in languages that use Latin conventions: EVA-ch. It can variously be interpreted as cr, tr, cc, ci, ce, ec, et, er, te, or tc (or other combinations). Interpretation depends on context.
These are not oddballs or uncommon in medieval script. They are normal and common. Their interpretation is NOT based on shape entirely. It is heavily based on context. So how do you determine which nodes are the same for something like the VMS, which might use the same conventions? Looking similar means very little if you can't read the glyphs. Especially since we don't know if height or tail-length changes the interpretation of a glyph. There are Asian languages where a tiny little serif changes the meaning of a syllable. Even in Hebrew, the distinction between Hey and Chet is difficult for some people to see and much more subtle than the variations among VMS glyphs.