dv, I need to think about this.
Converting EVA to lowercase collapses the character set, which will no doubt influence the outcome. EVA mapping is different from uppercase and lowercase in a traditional alphabet.
Sh (Sh) is quite different from sh (sh). It's not simply a lowercase version of the same thing as it would be in English. And it's not a simple variation of the same shape (that's an artifact of the font design... the "cap" over EVA-Sh is often disconnected from the glyph beneath it—it's possible it is three chars in Voynichese).
EVA-s often stands alone and has certain positional characteristics that are not specifically linked to EVA-h. In contrast, EVA-S doesn't typically stand alone and it is positionally linked (as a ligature) to EVA-h.
Give me an hour to mull this over (or maybe someone else has a suggestion). Even if you don't try the scenarios I suggested (I hope you will), you DO need to fix this problem in your original analysis.
Converting EVA to lowercase collapses the character set, which will no doubt influence the outcome. EVA mapping is different from uppercase and lowercase in a traditional alphabet.
Sh (Sh) is quite different from sh (sh). It's not simply a lowercase version of the same thing as it would be in English. And it's not a simple variation of the same shape (that's an artifact of the font design... the "cap" over EVA-Sh is often disconnected from the glyph beneath it—it's possible it is three chars in Voynichese).
EVA-s often stands alone and has certain positional characteristics that are not specifically linked to EVA-h. In contrast, EVA-S doesn't typically stand alone and it is positionally linked (as a ligature) to EVA-h.
Give me an hour to mull this over (or maybe someone else has a suggestion). Even if you don't try the scenarios I suggested (I hope you will), you DO need to fix this problem in your original analysis.