[ey] and [dy] Feature Patterns

[Torsten]

I think we're closer on this point than you suggest. So long as we know what kind of pattern/relationship interests us, then z--scores are fine, within their limitations. We could certainly be tighter with how we describe those relationships, but saying that the occurrence of [qo] after [ey] and [edy] is equally unusual still gets us something interesting: the token count in that position is (similarly) raised.

(To note, in the data I'm using, the token counts for [qo] after [ey] and [edy] is 723 and 1388, so an even bigger difference than the one you state. But the likelihood is 0.31 and 0.39 respectively, and the token count for [qo] immediately before the word is only 60% of the one immediately after. So we can see how the raw token count gives us a somewhat false impression, while the z--score picks out how exceptional this distribution is.)

Indeed, both occurrences are unusual, which speaks to their quality. However, the quantity differs significantly: [qo] appears more often after [edy.] than after [ey.] (likelihood 0.39 vs. 0.31). In other words, the Z-score is a specific number that indicates how far away something is from the norm. However, it's still necessary to examine the observation itself to fully understand it.(Note: Final-[ey] also occurs in Currier A, whereas final-[edy] is nearly absent. This discrepancy likely contributes to the differences in the statistics.)