> > Is it possible you've got the fix backwards? I think ETAONRISHetc is > > from some well-known research, but ETSAOR* is brand new and even google > > cannot find a reference to that ordering. It seems there is a bug here, > > but is it perhaps the other frequency table? > > I certainly don't claim to know which frequencies are more accurate. > Does anyone have a preferred source for which percentages to use?
I suggest a google search for ETAONRISH, which leads to a handful of references from 1960, 1963, etc. Of course it is only an estimate, and will vary between regions and countries EH? I think that frequency order is still the most accepted.
