The oddities of the bigram "ed" pt. 3 : It's not just "ed"

[oshfdk]

While I don't disagree, I think that it works in the opposite direction. The observation that ed (in fact e) does not appear at the start of words suggests that e is something attached to the preceding character. 

Clear example: in chol the ch can be detached and ol is also frequent. However, in chedy the ch cannot be detached. che can.

But this is already a model of sorts, that assumes that character combinations are blocks that can be "attached" and "detached". We can consider another model that works by transforming characters, and then the absence of ed would mean that e has a different word-starting form. For example, edy on its own becomes chol by splitting y to ol and merging ed to ch. In the context of these different models the statistics can be very illuminating, but without them the statistics are just pretty charts.