[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: VMs: [ha] [hb] not different languages
> I'm much more sympathetic to Mark Perakh's idea that perhaps A is more
> heavily abbreviated than B - my last major post on this covered
> this quite
> fully. IMO, any analysis that might serve to differentiate between these
> languages *without* recourse to the apparent spaces (and hence apparent
> words) would be a very much more substantial result. For example, the
> presence of the free-standing <l> (ie, not part of an <ol> or
> <al> pair) is
> a fairly good indicator of language, IIRC?
I'm of the initial observational opinion that B is more "homogenous" than A,
which would indicate "more heavily abbreviated", if that is the case here.
Where may I find Mark's work on this?
Also, I've done character, digraph and trigraph studies, without spaces, as
standard practice, all of which lead me to believe that the "word" is the
actual written entity. These studies peak with average word length, and
when spaces are observed the most repetitive structures appear. Going
beyond the "word" to include endings and/or beginnings of nearby words
yields interesting observations for a relatively few patterns, but starts to
break down the "cohesiveness" of the study, bringing us back to "word"
again. A detailed view of why this may not be so would be most interesting.
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: