This histogram is similar to what Matthias posted, but I split certain (green) and uncertain (yellow) spaces. Data are sorted by increasing certain-space % value. I think this can help illustrate Patrick's findings.
Many bigrams have a clear preference for appearing adjacent or separated by certain spaces: they occupy the opposite sides of the graph. When it is not clear whether a bigram should be regarded as mostly conjoint or disjoint, we can expect a peak for uncertain spaces. Uncertain spaces tend to appear in those cases where both certain spaces and adjacency have significant values. They tend to cluster at the middle of the histogram, resulting in a gradual shift from adjacency, to uncertain spaces, to certain spaces. The scribes mostly wrote uncertain spaces for those bigrams whose statistical nature is ambiguous about adjacency / spacing.
EDIT1: C and S correspond to EVA ch / sh
EDIT2: here % values are computed with respect to the totals of each category. E.g. 12% for certain-separated 'yq' means that 12% of all the bigrams separated by '.' are 'y.q'.
Many bigrams have a clear preference for appearing adjacent or separated by certain spaces: they occupy the opposite sides of the graph. When it is not clear whether a bigram should be regarded as mostly conjoint or disjoint, we can expect a peak for uncertain spaces. Uncertain spaces tend to appear in those cases where both certain spaces and adjacency have significant values. They tend to cluster at the middle of the histogram, resulting in a gradual shift from adjacency, to uncertain spaces, to certain spaces. The scribes mostly wrote uncertain spaces for those bigrams whose statistical nature is ambiguous about adjacency / spacing.
EDIT1: C and S correspond to EVA ch / sh
EDIT2: here % values are computed with respect to the totals of each category. E.g. 12% for certain-separated 'yq' means that 12% of all the bigrams separated by '.' are 'y.q'.


![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)