I finally have a few minutes to really think about this question.
I agree that these are duplicates, particularly if they are adjacent -> daiin daiin They are apparently similar. Whether it's "duplication" in the strictest sense of being a repeat (rather than two instances with shades of meaning), I need to think about some more. In English we can say, "He had had a bad day," and it has a different grammatical meaning from, "He had a bad day." It's duplication in terms of letters, but not in terms of grammar.
I am not completely comfortable with the word quasi-duplication (you don't need the "re-" part, as it is redundant) when referring to VMS text because it implies an intent to duplicate when, in fact, two things can be almost the same and yet have no such intention. It might need to be defined more specifically.
For example, in a sentence like "The dog dug a hole," dog and dug only differ by one letter, but there's no intent to duplicate and the similarity is coincidental.
I can see that quasi-duplication might be an appropriate term for the example you posted in your opening post where obviously the intention is the same, even though the words are spelled differently (e.g., blan and blanc). We can see by context that they refer to the same thing.
But, in contrast to natural-language examples, we cannot discern intention in the VMS until we know more about it. We can observe similarity, but we need more evidence to know whether it's quasi-duplication (or quasi-triplication or quasi-replication if there are more than two that appear to be similar).
I agree that these are duplicates, particularly if they are adjacent -> daiin daiin They are apparently similar. Whether it's "duplication" in the strictest sense of being a repeat (rather than two instances with shades of meaning), I need to think about some more. In English we can say, "He had had a bad day," and it has a different grammatical meaning from, "He had a bad day." It's duplication in terms of letters, but not in terms of grammar.
I am not completely comfortable with the word quasi-duplication (you don't need the "re-" part, as it is redundant) when referring to VMS text because it implies an intent to duplicate when, in fact, two things can be almost the same and yet have no such intention. It might need to be defined more specifically.
For example, in a sentence like "The dog dug a hole," dog and dug only differ by one letter, but there's no intent to duplicate and the similarity is coincidental.
I can see that quasi-duplication might be an appropriate term for the example you posted in your opening post where obviously the intention is the same, even though the words are spelled differently (e.g., blan and blanc). We can see by context that they refer to the same thing.
But, in contrast to natural-language examples, we cannot discern intention in the VMS until we know more about it. We can observe similarity, but we need more evidence to know whether it's quasi-duplication (or quasi-triplication or quasi-replication if there are more than two that appear to be similar).