Vord paradigm tool

[Emma May Smith]

Hermes, I would be interested in why you analyse okeom and qokeody differently.

You have:

• o-ke-om
  
• qo-keo-dy
  

So the B slot has two different possibilities in these words ke and keo. Yet these two words could be united with the analysis:

• o-keo-m
  
• qo-keo-dy
  

I see that your model allows empty slots, so would this be possible.

(Also, I think we're really close in our analysis of words. Once [o, y/a] are taken as the fundamental markers of the "sections" then the three slot model presents itself so clearly. Each possible choice for a slot also obeys the same glyph order: [t, k, p, f, d, s, l, r] > [ch, sh] > [e, ee, eee] > [o, y/a]. Given that much of the low entropy must be due to this glyph order within sections, I wonder if taking these sections as the fundamental units of analysis would be better? That is, we're not worried too much that [k] precedes [ch], but rather that [cheo] precedes [ty] or [o] precedes [ksho]? And further, whether [oksho] (or whatever) takes [r] over [l]?)

---

The 'leapfrog' pattern from my previous post is unusual because it can easily be implemented as a functional operator on the big correlation matrix.  Other schemes, of greater linguistic merit, may be roundabout or impossible (for me!) to check in that way.

I guess that's the big challenge to any theorist: state your theories clearly and plainly, and testably. It's better to have a simple statement which can be shown with statistics than complicated ones which are too difficult.