descent with modification

[Torsten]

What I'm trying to assess is the hypothesis that [Ed] becomes more common over time as the cumulative effect of a tendency to switch towards it more often than away from it (please correct me if that misrepresents what you're arguing).  Could that happen between pages if it didn't also occur to some degree within pages?  It must happen somewhere if it happens at all.  I suppose it's possible that the writer favored [Ed] when copying words from other pages, but not when copying words from earlier on the current page -- but that would introduce an added complication.

I did not argue with a cumulative effect of a tendency to switch towards [ed] more frequently than away from it. This might suggest that the text was generated by a stateless machine, such as a mechanical device. However, my hypothesis posits that the text was actually produced by a medieval scribe, unaided by any additional tools. Unlike a machine, a human being has the capacity to learn and adapt, meaning their behavior can change in similar situations over time.

For instance, in Currier A, the scribe writes the word [chey] in close proximity to similar tokens like [shey] and [chy] (see, for example, folios You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). In Currier B, however, the scribe writes [chey] near tokens such as [chedy], [shey], and [shedy] (see folios You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). This suggests there was a period before the scribe began using [ed] and a period after they adopted this practice.

Secondly, not for all words containing [Eo] similar words containing [Ed] or [Ey] exist. There are for instance also words like [cheol], [cheor], [sheol], and [sheor] which are not directly related to vords like [chey], [chedy] or [cheody].

In this context, variation among [cheol], [cheor], [Sheol], and [Sheor] would count as "no change": [Eo] remains [Eo].  If [Ed] is steadily increasing, it should still increase relative to any unchanged proportion of [Eo], shouldn't it?

Words like [cheol], [cheor], [Sheol], and [Sheor] are related to words like [chol], [chor], [Shol], and [Shor]. This suggests a possible transformation from [cho] to [cheo], leading to instances of [cheo]. This pattern is evident in Currier A. For example, in Herbal A, there are 228 occurrences of [chol], but only 28 occurrences of [cheol]. In contrast, in Pharma A, there are 45 instances of [chol], alongside 40 instances of [cheol].

The four most frequent 'ch/sh'-word types for Herbal (A) and Pharma (A) (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.):

             1nd         2nd          3rd         4th         word count
Herbal (A)   chol (228)  chor  (155)  shol (104)  sho  ( 96)  8,087
Pharma (A)   chol ( 45)  cheol ( 40)  chor ( 24)  cheor (24)  2,529