26-07-2021, 06:28 PM
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?
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?
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)