Are perfect-reduplication and quasi-reduplication related?

[davidjackson]

Please, check the value of C4. Shouldn't it be 0.738 to match my data?

Whoops! Typo Alert! Sorry.

Thank you for the example file and for providing the C values.



Why are you multiplying %red and %quasi by 100? 66 occurrences in a corpus of 6347 is 0.0139%, not 1.04%.
But yes I now get CORREL to 0.8535.

Calculating the associated p-value (because I can) we get the p-Value of .30621 (the result is significant at p < .05)
   

The coefficient of determination is 0.7285.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I double checked the correlation using You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Raw data below.
Values used:

(nred/C)*100
0.611995104039168
0.626423690205011
0.738347946469774
0.743236547418492
0.907150480256136
1.03986135181976

(nQuasi/C)*100
1.92778457772338
1.36674259681093
2.03045685279188
2.20989000099098
2.40128068303095
2.56814242949425

...and the raw amounts before they are multiplied by 100
nred/C
0.006119951040392
0.00626423690205
0.007383479464698
0.007432365474185
0.009071504802561
0.010398613518198

nQuasi/C
0.019277845777234
0.013667425968109
0.020304568527919
0.02209890000991
0.02401280683031
0.025681424294943

What does it all mean? No idea.
YES it suggests that reduplication and quasi reduplication are linked. But I can think of no logical reason why. Nor do I really now think that we have excluded the possibility of dittography. It may simply be that the number of instances are so low that they appear to be statically linked; but the real reason is that occurrences of both lie within the realms of possibility.
IE it's not unlikely that the scribe fell into the trap of reduplicating words, and semi reduplicating words, as he (they) went along.

I still think it is worth investigating the number of occurrences by scribe, were such a thing possible.