[qokeeoky] and [qokeokedy] present the problem of the second [k]. In the template I'm using this is why there is a column in the third compartment C that allows [ch], [sh] and by extension gallow and bench gallows in that place. We can see where these vord are problematic by putting them onto the paradigm thus:
In the case of [qokeeoky] the problem is resolved by allowing the compound vowel formation [eeo] in the vowel slot in compartment B.
In the second case we allow [eo] as the vowel in compartment B and we must allow the double ending [dy] instead of just final [d]. This is a case of what I call the fortification of the ending. Some vords have fortified endings.
The final forms of glyphs provoke vord breaks. Sometimes we find them duplicated. Here [y] has been added to reinforce or fortify the [ed]. An emphatic ending. The reason endings are fortified, it seems, is to remove any ambiguity as to whether a word break (space) follows. Here [-ed] might be ambiguous (or 'weak') whereas final [y] insists on a word break.
In the case of [qokeeoky] the problem is resolved by allowing the compound vowel formation [eeo] in the vowel slot in compartment B.
In the second case we allow [eo] as the vowel in compartment B and we must allow the double ending [dy] instead of just final [d]. This is a case of what I call the fortification of the ending. Some vords have fortified endings.
The final forms of glyphs provoke vord breaks. Sometimes we find them duplicated. Here [y] has been added to reinforce or fortify the [ed]. An emphatic ending. The reason endings are fortified, it seems, is to remove any ambiguity as to whether a word break (space) follows. Here [-ed] might be ambiguous (or 'weak') whereas final [y] insists on a word break.