About the construction of lines in the MS

[Jorge_Stolfi]

So overall, expanding m to iindoes not make the structure more visible in these models, and tends to weaken it.

I am not sure I understand you explanation (what was AOC, again?).  But the expectation was that the replacement of m by iin would indeed make the line-end anomalies weaker.

The test I was thinking was: in each parag,

• Replace m by iin everywhere.
  
• Join lines into a single token stream.
  
• Feed that stream to the SLA with different rail width W.
  
• Measure the anomalies around the new line breaks.
  
• Compare with the anomalies seen in the original text.
  

The SLA is what I described previously: like the basic TLA, but with some low-probability random abbreviation of iin to m everywhere, and mandatory abbreviation at line end if it would delay the line break.

As before, the line length limit W should be specified as a max number of EVA characters, glyphs, or mm; not as max number of words.  

The new length limit W should be either ~62% of the parag's average line length, or ~162%, to minimize the chance of new breaks coinciding with the old ones.

I predict that with this test the anomalies around the new line breaks should be stronger than those created by the plain TLA, but probably weaker than those seen in the current line beaks.  That's because the actual Scribe's algorithm surely used more tricks than just "abbreviate iin to m."

All the best, --stolfi