@ Stolfi
Regarding the long-range effect: I don’t know how to describe this any more clearly—it’s really similar to the oq case. Here, the relationship between o and q is “more natural” when read backward; in a certain sense, it’s a dependent structure, and no one would check here to see if oq backward would be an atom (but the nearly 100 percent dependency remains, after all).
And exactly the same applies to the sh / k / ch phenomenon. The same dependency does not imply the same step-by-step selection structure. This refers to the linguistic level; when read backward, the long-range effect—although mathematically present—is easier to “explain” because it is cumulative—just as with “oq,” only here it spans multiple glyphs, yet still without a “jump.”When reading backward, the (as mentioned, existing) structure is not noticeable; it blends in with the other distributions of the glyphs. See the diagram:
Regarding the long-range effect: I don’t know how to describe this any more clearly—it’s really similar to the oq case. Here, the relationship between o and q is “more natural” when read backward; in a certain sense, it’s a dependent structure, and no one would check here to see if oq backward would be an atom (but the nearly 100 percent dependency remains, after all).
And exactly the same applies to the sh / k / ch phenomenon. The same dependency does not imply the same step-by-step selection structure. This refers to the linguistic level; when read backward, the long-range effect—although mathematically present—is easier to “explain” because it is cumulative—just as with “oq,” only here it spans multiple glyphs, yet still without a “jump.”When reading backward, the (as mentioned, existing) structure is not noticeable; it blends in with the other distributions of the glyphs. See the diagram: