02-11-2025, 11:52 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-11-2025, 11:55 AM by Jorge_Stolfi.)
(02-11-2025, 07:22 AM)Petrasti wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It seems that the a and o can be exchanged flexibly without a ‘rule’
Beware that transcribers often have to guess whether a glyph is an a or an o (or a y that lost its tail). Thus some of that "flexibility" may be just transcription errors.
And the (ahem! ahem!) scribes who restored and retouched faded text faced the same problem. I think I can see many cases where they could not make out the original and just guessed o or a. Or intentionally drew am intermediate glyph shape that could be read as either of them...
Thus, in statistical analyses, it may be safer to map "confusible" letters to the same letter: {a,o,y} -> o, {r,s} -> r, {ch,ih} -> ee, etc. The analysis may then miss some structure, but it would be less affected by such restoration and transcription noise.
All the best, --stolfi

