Why and how the text could be Bavarian

[Jorge_Stolfi]

When writing the “sh” in “shedy,” the writer would already have to know that the next word begins with 51 % = “qo.” That is what is peculiar: a glyph in a word “knows” something about its successor. That is strange—a kind of long-range effect.

JoJo, forgive me for repeating the advice I gave on another thread:  character-level statistical analyses (character and digraph frequencies, entropies, correlations, etc.) are very likely to be a waste of time.  That includes these so-called "attractions" and "remote effects" between certain glyphs and digraphs, like between Sh and qo.

There are a few situations in a few languages where correlations are indeed associated to specific letters or digraphs, independently of the words that contain them.  In Turkish there are "vowel harmony" rules that generally require all vowels of a word to be "front" or all of them to be "back".  So that if the root uses "front" vowels, all suffixes attached to it must also use "front" vowels: "ev"="house", "evler"= "houses", but "araba"="car", "arabalar"="cars".  Thus, in that case you could indeed say something like "front vowels attract front vowels".

But such character-based rules seem to be very rare.  In English there is the rule that the article "a" changes to "an" when the following word begins with a vowel.  But that rule is character-based only on the right side, because it only applies to the article "a", not to any word that ends in "a".  And in fact it it is not quite character based on the right either, because the "a" may remain just "a" depending on how the initial letter of the next word is pronounced: "an umbrella", "an hour", "an ostrich", but "a university", "a house", "a one-way street".  

Statistics of characters and digraphs are mainly determined by the statistics of the few most common words that contain them, and the latter are all mixed together.   Thus, for example, consider the claim

•  in English the digraph "th" at the beginning of a word is "attracted" to the letter "i" at the beginning of the next word
  

-- like Sh and qo in your case.  

I haven't checked, but even if this claim is true it is pretty useless and maybe even misleading.  It will not lead to any useful insight into the English grammar, and could lead one to infer rules that are actually not valid.

If that claim is true, it is probably due to the common pairs "this is", "that is", "there is", etc.  Meaning that it is not an attraction between the characters "th" and "i", but between certain common words that happen to use those characters.  Thus a more useful statement would be 

• in English the words "this","that","there","he","she","it" are attracted to the words "is","isn't", and there is a similar attraction between "then","thus","therefore" and "it","its".  But "the","their", on the contrary, are repelled by those four "i"-words.
  

Thus, in your case, what seems to be happening is that there are certain words that begin with sh that tend to be followed by certain words that begin qo. 

However, judging from some quick checks I ran, there probably are some non-Sh-words that are attracted just as strongly to qo-words, and some Sh-words that are actually repelled by some qo-words; and the effects may be opposite for some other qo-words. 

Identifying those attractions and repulsions between word pairs has a much better chance of providing useful insights than hunting for "remote effects" between characters.

All the best, --stolfi