Time to retire Currier languages?

[Emma May Smith]

For the sake of being complete, here's how Currier defined A and B in the Herbal section:

(a) Final ‘dy’ is very high in Language ‘B’; almost non-existent in Language ‘A.’
(b) The symbol groups ‘chol’ and ‘chor’ are very high in ‘A’ and often occur repeated; low in ‘B’.
© The symbol groups ‘chain’ and ‘chaiin’ rarely occur in ‘B’; medium frequency in ‘A.’
(d) Initial ‘chot’ high in ‘A’; rare in ‘B.’
(e) Initial ‘cTh’ very high in ‘A’; very low in ‘B.’
(f) ‘Unattached’ finals scattered throughout Language ‘B’ texts in considerable profusion; generally much less noticeable in Language ‘A.’

I think that:

a) This is an overstatement. Final [dy] is much less common in Herbal A, but plenty occurrences exist.
b) [chol] and [chor] are definitely higher in A.
c) There are too few occurrences of [chain] to make an argument, but [chaiin] is common enough in B while being almost absent in A.
d) While [chot*] appears frequently on some A pages, it is wholly absent from many. Seems more like a page thing than a language thing.
e) This seems broadly true.
f) I'm not sure this can be easily assessed.

Overall, of the six statements, two are true, one half true, and another true in the whole but not in detail.