Floating gallows

[pfeaster]

So we see that [lchey] exists (and is very common) but [clhey], [chley], and [chely] don't exist and [cheyl] has one token, so assume that the form [Xchey] is not the same as [cXhey] (or other). Now, [l] isn't a gallows, I know, but it forms part of the information we use to understand word structure. We would otherwise be stating that the [chey] in [lchey] is not the same as the [chey] in [kchey]. But is that any better (or worse) than saying that the [chey] in [Xchey] is not the same as [cXhey]?

That's a helpful way of expressing it.  When we judge whether a word contains [AB] as an element, what potential forms of elaboration should we consider: only [XAB] and [ABX], or also [AXB]?  Of course the latter model could be tested for any glyph, and not just gallows.  The words [chol] (316) and [lchol] (4) seem to contain [cho] plus one or two tokens of [l], but what about [chlol] (1) and [chllo] (1)?

Benched gallows are probably the least avoidable case of some apparent [AB] (the [c] and [h] pieces of the bench) and [X] (the gallows) being combined as [AXB] -- if indeed that's what's happening there.  If so, the existence of one such case might support the idea of searching for others, particularly with regard to gallows.

As RenegadeHealer points out, the "transparency" of gallows in the curve-line system would dovetail nicely with a model in which gallows are inserted into preexisting word structures.  So might limits on the maximum amount of mantle in a word.  If the mantle can be of a certain length, but no longer, and can then have a gallows inserted into it somewhere, that would be one way to account for us not seeing words that simultaneously have long mantle sections on both sides of a gallows.  I believe mantle lengths top out at --

2 0.00013 ..cheee#ch.......
3 0.00152 ..cheec#he.......
1 0.00051 ..cheec#hee......

-- while words that have less mantle before the gallows can extend the mantle further rightward past it:

2 0.00013 ....che#chee.....
5 0.00033 .....ch#chee.....
2 0.00013 .....ch#chch.....
2 0.00013 .......#cheee....
2 0.00013 .......#echee....
6 0.00040 .......#eeche....
1 0.00007 .......#chche....
6 0.00040 .......#chech....

The question is whether these assumptions about analogising word structure are correct and whether they've been adequately tested. I think your hypothesis is a good challenge and, while I believe we have the word structure broadly correct, I'm not sure we can prove it in every instance. Can we break down the question about word structure and gallows insertion into smaller parts?

Rene made one suggestion for subdividing it into two separate "mysteries," which it might be possible to tackle separately.  Is that the sort of thing you have in mind?