20-05-2020, 08:56 PM
(This post was last modified: 21-05-2020, 06:17 PM by Torsten.
Edit Reason: typo
)
(19-05-2020, 08:48 PM)MarcoP wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Following Rene's suggestion, I added CUVA:EO EVA:eo (but not including EVA:eeo which is represented as CUVA:UO). Here it is displayed together with CUVA:SO / EVA:cho.
The new measure separates the Pharma/Recipes section from (most of) Herbal A, showing the variability in Scribe 1's output mentioned by Emma and not detectable from the previous graphs. The bizarre f58 is here shown not to be similar to Pharma/Recipes after all: it appears closer to the main group of Currier B. But from the first graph in the previous post, as also observed by Rene, we know that f58 greatly differs from Currier B on the basis of EVA:ed.
EVA-[-eo-] and EVA-[cho] are not independent from each other. EVA-[-eo-] occurs in tokens like [cheol] and the sequence EVA-[cho-] in tokens like [chol]. This is also visible in the graph since the top-EO% folios as well as the top-SO% folios belong both to Currier-A. As a result it looks as if there is a gap between [cho]-folios and [cheo]-folios ,whereas this is in fact only the difference between tokens like [chol] and [cheol].
This overlap between [-eo-] and [cho-] also affects the outcome for bifolio 93/96. On folio 93v we can find tokens like [chody], [cthody], [chol], and [cthol] (see network graph for You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.), whereas folio 96r uses tokens like [chol], [cheol], and [sheol] (see network graph for You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).