(07-09-2016, 07:19 PM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have a rather similar table You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (about two thirds down), with statistics for a few additional 'types' of pages.
It takes a while to digest, perhaps. It uses the Currier transcription alphabet (it was written in pre-Eva times).
I split the recipes folios (f103-116) into two parts, which I called stars-B and stars-Bio based on some statistical considerations which are explained on that page.
What I think it shows is that the relationship between daiin and aiin is probably more complicated.
Thanks, Rene - I had looked at this page in the past - very useful.
What further motivated me with this was to try to find a mapping between ngrams of the B glyphs and ngrams of the A glyphs to see if I could convert A words to B words while preserving the frequency distributions. The best fit showed that the non-gallows glyphs were interchangeable, but the gallows weren't, which was odd.
(07-09-2016, 08:10 PM)Koen Gh. wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Isn't it just a possibility that the source text for both sections was in a different language, dialect, register or just vocabulary set? Even if it wasn't a standard prose text but rather a set of data of some kind, this is still possible.
Yes, absolutely it assumes prose. The likelihood of the plaintext being in two or more different languages seems small to me, but who knows. If Language A is plaintext German, and Language B is plaintext Latin, then the enciphered most frequent words would be expected to look very different. But, in the case of the most frequent "8am" and "am", they don't.