One funny word on f114r.30

[Jorge_Stolfi]

Since I’m currently working on some analyses that might prove interesting once all the control tests are done, I tested your Core Alphabet to clean up the IVTFF corpus. 
The 1-to-1 compression

You mean what I originally called the "crust-mantle-core" model of word structure? (It has by now evolved into a "7-slot plus OKOKO model", Q^q D^d X^x G^g H^h X^y D^e N^n with q+d+e+n and x+h+y in 0..3, g+h in 0..1, with at most three O elements inserted before, between, and after the other elements).  What do you mean by 1-to-1 compression? Treating each of my "elements" as a single character?

that score means the text "could" be compared to a highly agglutinative or even polysynthetic language, where words are built by concatenating numerous small suffixes to one another.

Perhaps, but in the agglutinative languages I know about the morphemes are often whole syllables, so the words end up being (1) rather long, and (2) with clear alternation between "consonants" and "vowels".  Which are known non-features of the VMS. (Jacques Guy may have been the first to run Sukhotin's V-C identification algorithm on the VMS, back in the late 1990s, and it did not work.).

The symbol repertoire seems to be too small for them to stand for syllables, but just right for them to stand for individual phonemes or other simple phonetic features.   All the word structure models, including mine and Zattera's, allow for a fixed number of slots, where each slot may be filled by a small number of alternative glyphs of glyph pairs, or left empty.  This is very much like the structure of syllables in some languages like Cantonese or Vietnamese.

This result made me reflect on your estimate of a 10% error rate. What if lkeede is not a spelling mistake for lkeedy at all? If the language "glues" concepts together, perhaps your core character e and your core character y aren't just simple orthographic variants, but actual grammatical suffixes?

My argument for lkeede being an error is that the {de} combination is rare compared to {d} (except in tokens that can be parsed as ...{d}{ee}... or ...{d}{eee}...); whereas {ke}, {te}, {che}, {she}, {eee}, {cthe}, and {ckhe} seem to be common compared to the versions without the final {e} (with the same caveat).    In my transcription {d} occurs 13194 times, while {de} only 49 times; whereas {k} occurs 10962 times, and {ke} 1787 times.  And also {d}{y} is a common combination (6952 occurrences), and {e} can be an {y} that lost its tail...

Furthermore, the hypothesis of an "agglutinative language" would perfectly explain the well-known anomaly of "Word Doubling". ... If this were really the case, is it possible that this isn't a text full of distracted scribal errors, but simply a non-European language that makes extensive use of suffixes and reduplication?

I doubt it.  Agglutinative languages are rather similar to European ones in their use of suffixes, just allow a lot more of them in the same word.  (Italian can have "portandocelo" = "port-" + "-ando-" + "-ce-" + "-lo" or "compartimentazioni" = "com-" + "-part-" + "-imenta-" + "-zion-" + "-i" ...)  The same mechanism that seems to suppress doubling in European languages presumably would apply to them too.

But Asian or Austronesian languages (like Chinese or Indonesian) use it constantly to form plurals or to intensify meaning.

Not just for intensification or plural. IIUC, in modern Mandarin 刚 alone generally means "hard", but 刚刚 means "exactly" or "just now".

And indeed, IIRC, Vietnamese uses repetition more often than Mandarin.

I suppose that this propensity to duplication follows from those languages being monosyllabic and non-inflecting.  Thus their use of duplication may be more appropriately compared to the occurrence of duplicate syllables in European words ("abitata", "adoreremo",  "allevava", "bibita", "candidi", "cocomero", "cuculo", "demagogo", "filologo", "nono", "panini", "papa", "pensoso", "pepe", "popolo", "rara", ...)

All the best, --stolfi