19-04-2020, 12:07 AM
(This post was last modified: 19-04-2020, 12:17 AM by ThomasCoon.)
Hello all, long time no see! I've been looking at qo- vords and would like to hypothesize a paradigm to form them:
[q] + [o/a/y] + [k/t/p/f] + [ch/che/chee/Sh/ee/etc.] + [o/a/y] + [r/l] + [d/s] + [o/a/y] + [n/in/iin/iiin/m/im/etc.]
In this paradigm, a group may be present or not (e.g. qotchol vs. qotcho). My theory is that presence or absence of certain characters may be input for a corresponding decoding table.
I am assuming that all the gallows characters are functionally equivalent, following Mary D'imperio (1978 pgs. 24-25) and also Marco Ponzi who put them into the same Character class You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., but I also assume this about the (usually) interchangeable ch/Sh/ee group.
Here are some examples:
qotchoiin
qotcham
qopchor
qokShol
qotchol
qoteeol
qokcheo
qokShy
qokchy
qotchy
qoteeey
qokeey
qokey
qoky
qoty
qokeeo
qotcho
qodaiin
qosaiin
qotaiin
qokaiin
What are your thoughts?
[q] + [o/a/y] + [k/t/p/f] + [ch/che/chee/Sh/ee/etc.] + [o/a/y] + [r/l] + [d/s] + [o/a/y] + [n/in/iin/iiin/m/im/etc.]
In this paradigm, a group may be present or not (e.g. qotchol vs. qotcho). My theory is that presence or absence of certain characters may be input for a corresponding decoding table.
I am assuming that all the gallows characters are functionally equivalent, following Mary D'imperio (1978 pgs. 24-25) and also Marco Ponzi who put them into the same Character class You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., but I also assume this about the (usually) interchangeable ch/Sh/ee group.
Here are some examples:
qotchoiin
qotcham
qopchor
qokShol
qotchol
qoteeol
qokcheo
qokShy
qokchy
qotchy
qoteeey
qokeey
qokey
qoky
qoty
qokeeo
qotcho
qodaiin
qosaiin
qotaiin
qokaiin
What are your thoughts?