03-06-2026, 11:53 AM
The text may not be readable yet, but the manuscript is starting to behave like it was built to preserve structured relationships between different textual areas.
After my previous posts about semi-rare token networks, I wanted to test the problem more globally. Until now I was mostly looking at specific rare-token bridges between folios and sections. This time I analysed ALL tokens in the manuscript simultaneously and classified them by distribution behaviour.
Very roughly, the categories were:
The interesting part is not the hapax themselves, but the middle layer: tokens that are neither ultra-local nor globally common. Those are the ones most capable of creating selective links between different textual communities.
Using TF-IDF weighted similarities, I then compared the real section-to-section structure against several null models. The nulls preserved: token frequencies, Currier/language distribution, writting hand distribution, but randomized where section labels appear.
The result surprised me a bit: even after controlling for language and writting hand, the real manuscript remains much more lexically segregated than the randomized versions.
Average z-scores:
Negative z-scores here mean the real sections are LESS similar to each other than expected under the null models. In other words: the manuscript is internally more organized than randomized versions preserving Currier and scribal structure.
This is important because one obvious criticism (and a fair one) is that Currier A/B morphology itself already biases many rare words, as pointed Dashstofsk:
And that is true. Forms like -edy, qo-, ol-, etc are not neutral. But the structure does not disappear after conditioning by language or writting hand. The null models already preserve those distributions. So the links between sections do not seem reducible only to Currier or scribal hand effects.
Some of the strongest surviving links are still:
What I personally find difficult to explain under a fully meaningless-text hypothesis is not simply local repetition, but the existence of stable cross-sectional structure after normalization.
A pseudo-language can easily generate repeated patterns. It is harder to accidentally generate sections that repeatedly behave as selective lexical communities after controlling for Currier and scribal effects.
Of course this still does NOT prove semantic meaning. A strongly constrained generative system could also produce part of this behaviour.
But at minimum, the manuscript increasingly behaves like a text organized to maintain internal relationships between different sections.
One speculative possibility (only speculation) is that sections like Marginal stars or some Text-only folios may contain more procedural, referential or organizational text. If so, this could partially explain why they repeatedly behave like lexical hubs connecting otherwise distant sections such as Herbal and Biological.
I also think the most interesting objects now are not the sections themselves, but the surviving bridge-token families:
qokain / qokedy / qolkedy / olkain / qotchy / cthor ...
Those are not isolated random forms anymore. They start looking to me more like structured lexical neighborhoods.
After my previous posts about semi-rare token networks, I wanted to test the problem more globally. Until now I was mostly looking at specific rare-token bridges between folios and sections. This time I analysed ALL tokens in the manuscript simultaneously and classified them by distribution behaviour.
Very roughly, the categories were:
| Category | Behaviour |
|---|---|
| Hapax | appear only once |
| Local-specific | appear in very few pages/sections |
| Domain bridges | partially specific but transversal |
| Global-distributed | common almost everywhere |
| Functional-transversal | very common structural vocabulary |
The interesting part is not the hapax themselves, but the middle layer: tokens that are neither ultra-local nor globally common. Those are the ones most capable of creating selective links between different textual communities.
Using TF-IDF weighted similarities, I then compared the real section-to-section structure against several null models. The nulls preserved: token frequencies, Currier/language distribution, writting hand distribution, but randomized where section labels appear.
The result surprised me a bit: even after controlling for language and writting hand, the real manuscript remains much more lexically segregated than the randomized versions.
Average z-scores:
| Null model | Mean z-score |
|---|---|
| Global section shuffle | -36 |
| Shuffle within language | -19 |
| Shuffle within writting hand | -6.6 |
Negative z-scores here mean the real sections are LESS similar to each other than expected under the null models. In other words: the manuscript is internally more organized than randomized versions preserving Currier and scribal structure.
This is important because one obvious criticism (and a fair one) is that Currier A/B morphology itself already biases many rare words, as pointed Dashstofsk:
(03-06-2026, 09:55 AM)dashstofsk wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The differences that categorise languages A and B ( character pairs or,eo,cho high in A and low in B, character pairs ee,ed high in B and low in A, word suffix edy high in B and low in A ) are also present in the rare words in these language sections. ( See attached. )
So, this is biasing your numbers. It should not surprise that hands 2 and 3 and quires 13 and 20 have better than expected probabilities of sharing these words.
And that is true. Forms like -edy, qo-, ol-, etc are not neutral. But the structure does not disappear after conditioning by language or writting hand. The null models already preserve those distributions. So the links between sections do not seem reducible only to Currier or scribal hand effects.
Some of the strongest surviving links are still:
| Section pair | TF-IDF similarity |
|---|---|
| Herbal ↔ Pharmaceutical | 0.71 |
| Marginal stars ↔ Text-only | 0.76 |
| Biological ↔ Marginal stars | 0.72 |
| Biological ↔ Text-only | 0.67 |
What I personally find difficult to explain under a fully meaningless-text hypothesis is not simply local repetition, but the existence of stable cross-sectional structure after normalization.
A pseudo-language can easily generate repeated patterns. It is harder to accidentally generate sections that repeatedly behave as selective lexical communities after controlling for Currier and scribal effects.
Of course this still does NOT prove semantic meaning. A strongly constrained generative system could also produce part of this behaviour.
But at minimum, the manuscript increasingly behaves like a text organized to maintain internal relationships between different sections.
One speculative possibility (only speculation) is that sections like Marginal stars or some Text-only folios may contain more procedural, referential or organizational text. If so, this could partially explain why they repeatedly behave like lexical hubs connecting otherwise distant sections such as Herbal and Biological.
I also think the most interesting objects now are not the sections themselves, but the surviving bridge-token families:
qokain / qokedy / qolkedy / olkain / qotchy / cthor ...
Those are not isolated random forms anymore. They start looking to me more like structured lexical neighborhoods.