Vord paradigm tool

[pfeaster]

This is an attempt to integrate two (or four!) different Vord Paradigms into a single model, a foolhardy attempt to forge a global template. It requires a dual paradigm. The two paradigms are:

CHOLDAIIN
QOKEEDY

Thanks for this latest installment in your ongoing vord paradigm investigations.

One question I'd meant to pose earlier was whether you found your [qokeedy] paradigm to be as good a fit for Currier A as for Currier B.  Before, when I proposed the idea of [qokeedy] and [choldaiin] loops in a different context (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.), the [qokeedy] loop was based on Currier B statistics, while the [choldaiin] loop was based on Currier A statistics.  The [qokeedy] loop can also be inferred from statistics for the text as a whole, but that's mainly (I assume) because there's so much more Currier B text than Currier A text.

Those loops are based on connecting the most probable individual glyph-to-glyph transitions (making some working assumptions about what counts as a glyph, of course), and in that context, the reason why the [choldaiin] loop doesn't contain a gallows is that there's no glyph in Currier A whose "first choice" of following glyph is a gallows.  In Currier B, by contrast, there is -- most notably, [o] is followed by [k] 30.31% of the time, well ahead of the next option of [l] at 23.25%.

Since the [choldaiin] loop itself is based on Currier A statistics, it might be interesting to look at where gallows most often appear specifically in Currier A.  I'm still absorbing the intriguing observations Tavie made at the Voynich conference yesterday, which involved some notable differences in gallows distribution among scribes -- and hence also Currier languages -- that could likely shed some light on this.

Gallows glyphs are inserted into the SPACES of the CHOLDAIIN cycle.

Here are the most common "nested" environments for unbenched [k] and [t] in Currier A -- i.e., trigrams where the middle glyph is an unbenched gallows, ignoring word breaks:

[oka] 244, [okch] 232, [oko] 210, [oke] 175, [ykch] 117
[otch] 275, [oto] 156, [ota] 153, [oty] 114, [ytch] 107

I suppose [oka] and [ota] could be analyzed as fitting a gallows into the "soft break" in [chol,daiin]; the other cases might get a bit more complicated.

On the other hand, benched gallows seem to fit neatly *into* the [ch] of [chol,daiin], as e.g. with the sequences [cKhol] and [cThol] -- that is, if we interpret these as gallows inserted into a bench, and if we're thinking of gallows being "inserted" anywhere, that seems like the most conspicuous situation in which that could be happening.  The benched gallows would seem to occupy the "space" only if [cKh] = [kch], as has sometimes been speculated.