But I can add two more tables:
Distribution of shXXX words (exact tokens only):
And the same, but with possible prefixes:
It's interesting that, across so many different variations sh always most strongly draws out qo (almost—only once, in “o,” is k higher).
@ Stolfi, you describe how the numbers are derived from word-pair frequencies. But so far, this assumption doesn’t explain why the differences across so many different forms systematically point in the same direction.
That’s where we differ. And you say it’s possible that these are word pairs, while I say I think it’s unlikely.
That’s really all there is to it, and that’s where we disagree. Thats all
But what’s much more important is whether this is possible in Chinese—and that brings us right back to your theory...
P.S. If you also take “t” into account, then in the endings shown above, ‘t’ is always lower than “sh”. Even with “p” (though there are very few such endings).
Distribution of shXXX words (exact tokens only):
And the same, but with possible prefixes:
It's interesting that, across so many different variations sh always most strongly draws out qo (almost—only once, in “o,” is k higher).
@ Stolfi, you describe how the numbers are derived from word-pair frequencies. But so far, this assumption doesn’t explain why the differences across so many different forms systematically point in the same direction.
That’s where we differ. And you say it’s possible that these are word pairs, while I say I think it’s unlikely.
That’s really all there is to it, and that’s where we disagree. Thats all
But what’s much more important is whether this is possible in Chinese—and that brings us right back to your theory...
P.S. If you also take “t” into account, then in the endings shown above, ‘t’ is always lower than “sh”. Even with “p” (though there are very few such endings).