Re: VMs: F66r

[Gabriel Landini <G.Landini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Friday 11 June 2004 17:24, Larry Roux wrote:
> I guess my point is anyone who is doing statistics is going to get all
> discombopulated by these combinations.  One might say "r never follows o"
> but if "m" does then that rule may NOT be correct.  Depending if you
> consider "m" a separate glyph, or an extension of "r"

Do you mean that r+o should be considered (for the example above) the same as 
m+o then?
That would disregard the obvious connectedness of the characters. I am not 
convinced by this either.

> Personally, I consider EVA "t" a "q" + "l" but that may be just silliness.

I would not think so for 2 reasons
1. note that <q> and <l> appear together:
<f105r.17> ...okedy.qlky

2. t and q tend to have rather different statistics.

> After all, Roman "W" isn't "V" + "V"
No, it is not, because they are connected. But this is very arbitrary too. For 
instance in Spanish, the letters "CH" and "LL" used to be separate characters 
in dictionaries. It is just recently that words starting ch- and ll- are 
under the "C" and "L" sections. I guess that otherwise string sorting using 
computers would lead to all sorts of problems.

Cheers,

Gabriel

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list