(05-04-2018, 08:51 PM)davidjackson wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Get an average number based on different transcriptions. We know what we need so it's fairly easy to run the numbers across different transcriptions.
The scenario is q+[?^o] versus q+o.
Now, we don't know the percentage of writing errors as nick pointed out recently. Ideally we should have all q+[?^o] options regularised in Eva so we can analyse them and discard transcription errors
What I would like is to be able to discard the motion that this is a fixed bigraph.
These are counts based on the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (ZL), Takahashi (TT) and First Study Group (FSG) transcriptions (extracted with the ivtt software). ZL and TT are both EVA. I have manually converted FSG.
I hope I haven't made any major errors. In TT, I counted 131 q-NOT(o) occurrences: 2.4% of the total.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)
