(21-06-2025, 08:23 PM)Mark Knowles wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As I have stated elsewhere I am inclined to the view that the "weird" or abnormal words most likely constitute the true text of the manuscript.
This may be, but considering weird words introduces a practical problem: weird words are rare by definition ('weird' being synonymous with 'improbable'), so it's sure any list of weird words will include also the scribal and transcription mistakes. For instance: none of the six (on ~41) weird words of post #21 ('oqd', 'aqol', 'tameiin', 'docheesm', 'tolkaiinr' and 'qrgs'), from RF1a-n, can be found in the transcription of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (it's obviously not my aim here to discuss the merits/faults of different transcriptions, I'm just taking them 'as they are').
Considering only the 'normal' (=~ more frequent) words, instead, largely avoids this problem, but there is no obvious break in the frequency data to suggest where the cutoff should be set, resulting as a minimum in a high degree of arbitrariness (and of course, if @Mark Knowles's hypothesis above is the right one, studying the normal words would be a waste of time).