Summary of previous notebooks
=============================
On 97-07-05 I obtained Landini's interlinear transcription of the VMs, version 1.6
(landini-interln16.evt) from
http://sun1.bham.ac.uk/G.Landini/evmt/intrln16.zip
I manually extracted from it a homogeneous, full-text sample
bio-m-evt.evt, consisting of pages 147-166 (f75r--f84v) of the
"biological" section, in Currier's Language B, hand 2. This section
includes Currier's and Friedman's transcriptions. Currier's seems
to be the most complete of them.
The two versions have many differences (affecting 5-10% of the
words), and often disagree even in the grouping of symbols: where
one sees two words the other sees a single word, what is [A] for one
may be [CI] for the other, and so on.
So I decided to break all characters doen to individual "logical"
strokes, and use one (computer) character to encode each stroke.
I called this new encoding "jsa" (Jorge's Super-Analytic).
After mapping to jsa, I generated a "consensus" version
of the biological section
cat bio-m-evt.evt \
| fsg2jsa \
> bio-m-jsa.evt
cat bio-m-jsa.evt \
| make-consensus-interlin \
> bio-x-jsa.evt
cat bio-x-jsa.evt \
| egrep '^<.*;J> ' \
| sed \
-e 's/{[^}]*}//g' \
> bio-j-jsa.evt
extract-words-from-interlin \
-chars "qocilgysxju" \
bio-j-jsa.evt \
bio-j-jsa
lines words bytes file
------ ------- --------- ------------
7054 7054 62690 bio-j-jsa.wds
2132 2132 24925 bio-j-jsa.dic
4661 4661 40897 bio-j-jsa-gut.wds
992 992 9720 bio-j-jsa-gut.dic
840 840 2445 bio-j-jsa-fun.wds
2 2 5 bio-j-jsa-fun.dic
1553 1553 19348 bio-j-jsa-bad.wds
1138 1138 15200 bio-j-jsa-bad.dic
Digraph counts:
q o c i l g y s x j u TOT
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
. 1398 965 1877 361 60 . . . . . . 4661
q 1 . 1229 18 . 1 154 . . . 700 . 2103
o 21 486 1 63 1087 1071 . . . . . . 2729
c 4 167 176 6137 1209 232 2114 2921 1019 . . . 13979
i 4 1 1 8 1997 2 . . 560 1616 37 457 4683
l . . . . . . 16 . . . 1566 . 1582
g 52 . 74 2150 4 4 . . . . . . 2284
y 2790 26 2 47 13 43 . . . . . . 2921
s 463 1 99 1013 1 2 . . . . . . 1579
x 827 24 105 488 5 167 . . . . . . 1616
j 46 . 76 2175 6 . . . . . . . 2303
u 453 . 1 3 . . . . . . . . 457
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
TOT 4661 2103 2729 13979 4683 1582 2284 2921 1579 1616 2303 457 40897
Some conclusions we get from this and other data:
\ci/ and \o/ are lexically similar but distinct letters.
The valid \i/ sequences are \ij/ \is/ \iis/ \iiu/ \iiiu/ \ix/;
the others are likely to be scription or transcription errors.
\qo/ is a combination that occurs only in word-initial position.