Vord paradigm tool

[ReneZ]

It is true but, tempting as it is to explain (way too many) irregularities as mistakes, qko and multiple gallows tell us more about the system than dysfunctional word models ever will.

I am not at all sure of anything. For the things we observe I can usually think of several explanations, and I am not ready to decide on one or the other. In fact, I find it hard to understand how (some) people are convinced about certain explanations for features in the text, since all we have are opinions, and there is no evidence.

For the case of Eva-qko, for me it is just as wrong to assume that this is an error, as to assume that it is part of a model or a ystem that we need to be able to explain. We just don't know.
In fact, the whole situation that there is a word paradigm, or several more or less successful ones, is unexpected, and this is not the case for 'normal'  encrypted documents of the time.

We don't know how the MS was created, and for me, the option that it is a fair copy by scribes who did not understand what they were copying, remains a possibility. In such a case, errors are likely to be abundant.

Even in normal manuscripts that are perfectly legible, and that were copied by professional scribes, there are some typical mistakes like copying a piece of text twice in a row, or jumping to the wrong source line while copying. The scribe should have noticed this as he could understand what he was copying, but in the end he is human and can make mistakes.
I could easily imagine that this is how the few words with two gallows (and other irregular words) came about, but I am not claiming this as being the right answer, and I can think of other explanations. I just don't know.

The bottom line is that we should not expect any rule to be hard and fast.

Now I have some ideas about the cases where Eva-q is not followed by Eva-o, but these are again guesses, without there being any way of knowing whether they are right or wrong.