The concept of Currier languages - that the statistics of the text vary in different parts of the manuscript - has been very useful for research. It has allowed us to compare the text with itself and understand more about the structure and variety of words.
But for several years it has been apparent that the difference between Currier A and B were not binary but a spectrum, with features growing or diminishing in strength across the manuscript. The two Currier languages only represent broad categories which themselves contain diversity.
We've always been able to analyse the text of the manuscript in sections, but the more recent work by Lisa Fagin Davis on scribal hands provides another way to divide the text. (Acknowledgement that, like for many things Currier was here first. But the recent work is much more secure than Currier's.)
Given this, is it time for researchers to retire speaking about Currier languages and instead talk exclusively - or mostly - about Scribes?
Is there any benefit from continuing with the distinction of Currier languages?
There are "Currier hands" and "Currier languages", I'm afraid they might be confused in this discussion. The "hands" are about scribes, while the "languages" are about peculiarities exhibited in the text.
I guess these are two separate, equally interesting questions:
1) Which model can improve the overly simple A vs B language model?
2) To what extent do Lisa's scribes support or complicate any new model?
(26-07-2021, 06:38 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are "Currier hands" and "Currier languages", I'm afraid they might be confused in this discussion. The "hands" are about scribes, while the "languages" are about peculiarities exhibited in the text.
Looking at data from the different scribes, I don't believe the Currier languages really exist. Each scribe has their own language.
[
attachment=5694]
On the subject of writing hands.
In order to be able to make further analyses, I would need a few samples of the different hands.
For example:
1st hand, as a sample, legible and about this size. 3 different hands would be enough. 4 would be better, but not mandatory.
I would be grateful for this.
I think this would be significantly premature. There is a strong interplay between the various sectional Voynichese variations and the scribal hands, but there's a lot of work to be done before discarding Currier A/B, particularly given the very marked differences between A and B. If anyone can even begin to tell me how A maps to B or vice versa then we'd be on a wildly interesting path forward.
IIRC, Currier himself suggested there were multiple scribes working on the book. However, he didn't pursue this line of enquiry, suggesting that they grouped into his two statistical groupings.
(26-07-2021, 07:40 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think this would be significantly premature. There is a strong interplay between the various sectional Voynichese variations and the scribal hands, but there's a lot of work to be done before discarding Currier A/B, particularly given the very marked differences between A and B. If anyone can even begin to tell me how A maps to B or vice versa then we'd be on a wildly interesting path forward.
I agree that we need to understand how the different languages map to one another. But I wonder if Currier languages hinder that? I'm not certain that Q13 and Q20 map perfectly onto each other, yet they're both Currier B.
Neither the C. languages nor the LFD sribes exist in reality, they are only learned inventions and only hinder the research of the ms.
To understand me correctly. At the moment I am only interested in the different manuscripts but not in a hint about the language or its possibilities.
Only the possible differences in the hand, and that only visually.