descent with modification

[pfeaster]

Indeed, in a text generated by self-citation it must be possible to observe a gradual evolution over time.

There appear to be three different / complementary processes proposed here:

1. Similar words co-occur near each other on an individual page because later tokens have been copied from earlier ones on the same page.  This is the process obelus has been exploring with the "descent with modification" approach.

2. Similar words co-occur within groups of pages because tokens on destination pages have been copied from tokens on source pages (which in turn may mutually resemble each other because of process #1).

3. The process of making minor changes to words is asymmetrical, in the sense that changes in one direction are (or become) more probable than changes back in the other direction, and tend therefore to accumulate and become progressively more frequent:

"It is possible to distinguish Currier A and B based on frequency counts of tokens containing the sequence <ed>. The summary in Table 2 shows, e.g., that if <chedy> is used more frequently, this also increases the frequency of similar words, like <shedy> or <qokeedy> .... At the same time, also words using the prefix <qok-> are becoming more and more frequent, whereas words typical for Currier A like <chol> and <chor> vanish gradually. Now, reordering the sections with respect to the frequency of token <chedy> replaces the seemingly irregular mixture of two separate languages by the gradual evolution of a single system from 'state A' to 'state B'. Since words typical for Currier A also exist in Currier B, but not the other way round, it is reasonable to assume that the order shown in Table 2 indeed represents the original sequence in which the sections of the VMS had been created" [Timm & Schinner 2020, p. 6].

So in this particular case, the hypothesis seems to be that the writer (if only one) would at some point have begun (for subjective aesthetic reasons, consciously or unconsciously) substituting the previously absent sequence [ed] in place of other sequences when copying words, but not substituting other sequences for [ed] in turn, or at least not at anything like the same rate.  Is that a correct summary?
Here's a chart of the relative percentages of [Ed], [Eo], and [Ey] by page of running text, sorted first by overall percentage of [Ed], and secondly (when there are no [Ed] present) by ratio of [Eo] to [Ey].  [E] is any quantity of [e].

   

A "gradual shift" from [Ey] to [Eo] looks as compelling here on the left as the "gradual shift" towards [Ed] does on the right, and seemingly "early" pages such as You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. do get sorted towards the far left side of this chart.  I suppose this sequence would be consistent with the whole of Currier A having been written (with the shift in preference over time from [Ey] to [Eo]), with the resulting pages then being taken out of order and used as sources for copying during a second stage, after the shift in preference to [Ed].  But the apparent [Ey]-to-[Eo] trajectory within Currier A doesn't continue seamlessly into Currier B.