Hermes777 suggests that one advantage of paradigms and other such analytical tools is that they let us identify abnormal words so that we can puzzle over them and try to account for them. The fact that the various word grammars and networks and so on seem to show so much agreement as to which words are the abnormal ones is gratifying, even if the reasons *why* they're abnormal according to each model often seem to be strikingly different, and even if the specific "rules" that are being broken in each case often seem to be impossible to translate from one model into another.
In that spirit, I'd be curious to see how the abnormalities in the following two words would play out in this paradigm:
[qokeeoky] <f90v1.9>
[qokeokedy] <f111r.40>
Like [lkshykchy], they each have two [k]s in them. Unlike [lkshykchy], there's no noted ambiguity in spacing, and the issue doesn't seem to be resolvable as a concatenation of two valid words.
I'm particularly interested in these two words because they seem highly abnormal from the standpoint of word structure, but not from the standpoint of individual glyph-by-glyph transitional probabilities. That is, if glyphs are filling prefix-stem-suffix "slots" in words, it's hard to account for them, but if glyphs are just constrained by the other glyphs near them, it's not. One model I experimented with predicted the similar-looking but unattested word [qokeeokeedy] as reasonably probable.
Of course I'd welcome any other analyses of these words too, but they seem very much like the sort of thing Hermes777 is looking to use this tool to examine. I think I can imagine what a self-citation/network analysis of them would look like, for example.
In that spirit, I'd be curious to see how the abnormalities in the following two words would play out in this paradigm:
[qokeeoky] <f90v1.9>
[qokeokedy] <f111r.40>
Like [lkshykchy], they each have two [k]s in them. Unlike [lkshykchy], there's no noted ambiguity in spacing, and the issue doesn't seem to be resolvable as a concatenation of two valid words.
I'm particularly interested in these two words because they seem highly abnormal from the standpoint of word structure, but not from the standpoint of individual glyph-by-glyph transitional probabilities. That is, if glyphs are filling prefix-stem-suffix "slots" in words, it's hard to account for them, but if glyphs are just constrained by the other glyphs near them, it's not. One model I experimented with predicted the similar-looking but unattested word [qokeeokeedy] as reasonably probable.
Of course I'd welcome any other analyses of these words too, but they seem very much like the sort of thing Hermes777 is looking to use this tool to examine. I think I can imagine what a self-citation/network analysis of them would look like, for example.