[ey] and [dy] Feature Patterns

[Torsten]

In my opinion, the statistics demonstrate that [*ey] and [*edy], although related, behave differently. One finding is that the word following an [ey]-final is more likely to start with a gallow than a word following an [edy]-final. It might be interesting to check if the [edy]-final is more strongly associated with other word starts than the [ey]-final. To me it looks like [qo*] is more likely after [edy] than after [ey]. Another idea to explore is whether there is a minimal distance between an occurrence of a [d]-glyph and the next occurrence of a gallow glyph. At least within words the [d]-glyph and gallow glyphs very rarely follow each other. The same might be true for word breaks.

A possible explanation for the end-to-end pattern for [*ey] and [*edy] is that the occurrence of a word final increases the likelihood of it reoccurring as the final of the next word. It seems as also other word finals, like [*d], [*l], [*r], and [*s] have an increased likelihood of reoccurring. It might be interesting to check if beside the tendency to avoid [*n.*n] other exceptions for this pattern exists. Side note: Similar start-to-start patterns might also exist. There are for instances sequences like "ckhy.ckho.ckhy" on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. or "lkaiin.lkchey.lkain.lror" on f115v.

Another interesting question for future research might be to check if differences in these patterns exist between Currier A and B, or even between different Currier B sections. One impression I have is that the patterns observable in Currier A often appear more pronounced in Currier B.