29-06-2020, 01:39 PM
Adding to what Rene said, some suggested anagrams would be just transcription errors (I found a couple from the Torsten's yesterday post). But it's obvious that there are many.
My initial thought was that anagramming is the product of scribe (for the given set of glyphs produced by an "algorithm" each scribe then sorts it in his own way). But with 15 anagrams out of the single set this is out of question.
What I could suggest as further steps in this direction:
a) observe frequency distribution of anagrams, i.e. for the given set of glyphs, is there a "dominating" anagram, and is this systematic across all sets
b) look what the vocabulary becomes if we reduce it by anagrams. That is, replace all anagrammed variants with the single word type (say, the sorted set).
My initial thought was that anagramming is the product of scribe (for the given set of glyphs produced by an "algorithm" each scribe then sorts it in his own way). But with 15 anagrams out of the single set this is out of question.
What I could suggest as further steps in this direction:
a) observe frequency distribution of anagrams, i.e. for the given set of glyphs, is there a "dominating" anagram, and is this systematic across all sets
b) look what the vocabulary becomes if we reduce it by anagrams. That is, replace all anagrammed variants with the single word type (say, the sorted set).