(01-05-2026, 10:58 AM)JoJo_Jost wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To clarify:
The VMS has a strict rule across line boundaries.
0% p-onset in 141 transitions is not a "trend"; it is a prohibition.
Such rules are not found in random pseudotext.
Spaces are not random layout markers.
If the token boundary (position of the space) triggers a hard rule, then spaces are structurally relevant.
Exactly what they are (true word boundaries or rule-based positions) remains open; what matters is: they are not without function.
The system operates at the token level, not at the glyph level.
The rule recognizes "ol as a token at the end of a line" - it does not recognize "ol as a bigram." Tokens exist as units in the VMS system.
The concentration of end glyphs into 5 values (89%) fits this pattern.
The system reduces the permissible end positions to a small number.
If spaces were word boundaries, the distribution of end glyphs would have to be broader - in Middle High German, endings are distributed across 10-11 letters.)
---
Three hypotheses regarding what the pure end markers (Classes B and C) might be:
Hypothesis 1: Sentence or paragraph end markers
They conclude a block of content. What follows is something different or shorter, not a new long block. This is consistent with the resulting avoidance of p and f.
Hypothesis 2: Line fillers
If there was still space at the end of the line, the author resorted to a standard formula. The actual content continues normally on the next line.
Hypothesis 3: Position-dependent token selection
Certain tokens are systematically selected for line-end positions, independent of preceding content. The blocking of p-onset reflects a structural rule of the writing system, not a semantic constraint.
Adding also that it took me a while to work out what you meant by p-onset. The text above in particular reads like an AI wrote this and it's not easy to work out exactly what you mean.