{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03183791606367583, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005788712011577424, 'mean_word_length': 4.994219653179191, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Odyssey Concordance

There is a humanities department in a certain University where, deplorably, lecturers evade the chore of essay-marking by setting multiple-choice tests instead and getting computers to mark them. But not even the most fundamentalist Luddite could reasonably object to T.'s labour-saving use of the computer to compile his excellent new Concordance, even though he is an American from Ohio State University. After all, the compiler of the previous Odyssey-Concordance, Henry Dunbar, complained in 1880 that the effort had ' somewhat weakened and impaired his eyesight'—a claim the more to be taken seriously inasmuch as Dunbar was a medical doctor by profession. In 1962 Marzullo published a revised version of Dunbar's Concordance. While admiring the dedication of Dunbar the enthusiastic amateur—' aureum saeculum, et Anglum agnoscis virum,' he memorably gushed over this dour Scotsman—he also found signs of naivety and amateurishness in the work. He corrected the many errors and accidental omissions he found in Dunbar by placing warning signs in the margin at appropriate points and listing the corresponding corrections and supplements in an Appendix—a procedure less than ideal, but all that could be afforded at the time. A churlish reviewer of T.'s work might likewise complain that his Preface shows a few signs of naivety and amateurishness. T. alleges of H. van Thiel's edition of the Odyssey (Hildesheim, 1991), on which his Concordance is based, that it contains 'augmented...perfects': he means augmented pluperfects. Astonishingly, he also claims that van Thiel's edition 'contains all of the verses often labeled as plus and minus verses'. This is quite untrue: van Thiel relegates many plus-verses to his apparatus and omits all mention of many others. However, van Thiel's text does include many post-Aristarchean interpolations, most of them not even bracketed. To his credit T. deals competently with this major flaw in van Thiel's edition: he has invented a new and peculiarly American critical sign, the bullet, with which he