(02-10-2016, 05:33 PM)ThomasCoon wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(02-10-2016, 03:59 AM)Sam G wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The scribe made a deliberate effort to write either kch or cKh, so I don't see why the distinction should be considered meaningless.
I'm not sure I agree - because someone made an effort to write something differently does not conclude that there is a distinction. This is observable: for example in English we can write <it's> or <it is> with the same meaning, but with distinct formats.
Perhaps, but certain things about the VMS like the low entropy suggest that there's not a lot of orthographic variation going on in general. And I still think my point about the script apparently being designed with cKh in mind is a strong indicator that it's meaningful.
Quote:Quote:Also, you cite the fact that they often do not occur in the same place as evidence that they are equivalent, but then also cite the fact that they sometimes do occur in the same place as evidence that they are equivalent... it's hard to imagine what evidence that they are not equivalent would look like.
Sorry if that was vague, maybe this will clear it up: the benched gallows appear very rarely after qo- (they follow <qo> about 2% of the 5300 times that <qo> is used), but when they do appear, very often a <gallows>+<ch> parallel word can be found (maybe even every time - I'll have to check).
I still see the same problem - a similarity is cited as evidence of equivalence and a difference is cited as evidence of equivalence. What would be evidence that they are not equivalent?
I agree that there is probably some kind of relationship between the two - that much seems obvious - but I do not see a reason to think that they are exactly the same.
Also, off the top of my head, words like cThol, cThor, and cThy are going to be way more common than tchor, tchol, and tchy, especially in the Herbal A section.