[ey] and [dy] Feature Patterns

[Emma May Smith]

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.

On words beginning [qo], it seems like both [ey] and [edy] are followed by [qo] with the same preference. There doesn't appear to be any difference, regardless of whcih glyps comes after [qo]. The same is (mostly) true for words beginning [o], where the preferences are mixed, but not hugely dissimilar except for [ot].

('ey.', '.qok') 3.5
('ey.', '.qol') 3.1
('ey.', '.qot') 2.7

('ey.', '.ok') 1.2
('ey.', '.ol') -2.5
('ey.', '.op') -0.8
('ey.', '.or') -1.5
('ey.', '.ot') -2.1

('edy.', '.qok') 3.7
('edy.', '.qol') 2.5
('edy.', '.qot') 3.5

('edy.', '.ok') 0.7
('edy.', '.ol') -2.8
('edy.', '.op') 0.8
('edy.', '.or') -1.8
('edy.', '.ot') 1.4

If [q]--insertion is a thing (and that's a big questions), then it seems to be operating (mostly) the same after both [ey] and [dy]. So the preference for [q] remains due to [y].

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.

So these are the numbers I get for End--End repeats:

[d.], [d.]: 0.7 (But this is from very low number of occurrences.)
[l.], [l.]: -1.7
[r.], [r.]: 1.8
[s.], [s.]: 2.1
[in.], [in.]: -2.1

And these from Start--Start:

[.k], [.k]: -1.5
[.t], [.t]: 1.5 (With a reduced threshold.)
[.d], [.d]: 0.1
[.l], [.l]: 2.2
[.r], [.r]: -1.1 (with a reduced threshold.)
[.ch], [.ch]: -1.6
[.sh], [.sh]: -1.8

The picture is mixed in both cases, and those with a score below +/- 2 might not be showing much unless contrasted with something else. I would be interested to know what others think. They key putting together all the smaller bits of evidence and finding something bigger.

Maybe something like Patrick's transitional probability could be used here: what are the chances which one word ending moves to another, and what is the order which results? If (and very big if) word endings were meaningful in some way, then those kinds of repeating patterns could be revealing.

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.

That's absolutely something which needs to be done. You are right.