Currier A and B

[don of tallahassee]

• From looking at Table A of the Currier document at Rene's site, it seems that most of the Language A pages were written by Hands 1 and 4, most of the Language B pages were written by Hands 2, 3 and 5.
  

This might mean something as simple as two scribes/authors (1 & 4) omitting an understood something while three other scribes/authors (2, 3, & 5) feel the something needs to be included.

This may be earlier scribes/authors including it, while later scribes/authors find that it can be omitted without the meaning of the word losing clarity.

In my larger proposed solution, this is the numerical quantity of one (EVA = d, group V) - which is not really needed when following the EVA = e glyph at the right end of a word, before an EVA = y glyph - because there are no Group V codes or Group VI codes with an EVA = e glyph in them. Thus, if no other Group V code (or part of Group VI codes EVA = chy, sy or ny) is found in this mandated position, the numerical quantity can be, and is, understood to be one.

If correct, it would probably mean the Language B pages were originally written before the Language A pages. I don't know of any way to check this.

It is an unexpected result to me - just came up with it - never thought about it before.

Unless the original two scribes/authors (1 & 4) thought the omission idea worked while the later three scribes/authors (2, 3, & 5) decided to go ahead and add it in for clarity and/or to prevent mistakes. (Doing a little cover-all-possible-outcomes work here.  )

It's my take on what it possibly means.

But that may be the main difference between Language A and Language B - just an understood glyph or a written-out glyph, EVA = d, in Group V.

Thank you.

Don of Tallahassee