Implications of the continuity of Currier "languages"

[DonaldFisk]

Researchers have drawn different conclusions from this evidence:

...Prescott Currier reported in Papers on the Voynich Manuscript that the text is in two separate languages or dialects, now commonly referred to as Currier A and Currier B. It will be shown here that this distinction is somewhat fuzzy. There are differences (see "A Principal Component Analysis of the Voynich Manuscript Words"), but these can be explained more simply by differences in the text's subject matter.

This does not demonstrate that the text is meaningful, or that the text variations are caused by different subject matter (as suggested in by Montemurro and Zanette). If that were the case, the difference between herbal A and herbal B should not exist. The cause of the (statistical) language variation is still unexplained.

As always, things are puzzling. I understand that both points of view have their value.

Let's speculate
What are the implications of these findings?
What the reasons for the observed phenomena can be?

I wrote that at the beginning of my investigation, when I assumed that the text was meaningful.   On the same web page, I also showed that text pages on similar subjects (in Pliny's Natural History) do form distinct clusters.   However, what I later found made me change my mind.   I ended up concluding that the text was more likely to be meaningless, with the differences explained just as well by the author tweaking the parameters used in generating text (or, more generally, gradually changing the methods by which the text was generated), and that similar parameter values (or methods) were used for pages with similar illustrations.