Extension to the Currier languages

[Torsten]

In any case, I have no issue at all with the statistics produced by you (Torsten) and consider them valid and valuable.

Where did you discuss or just give a reference to any valuable statistic of mine?

There are variations at the lower levels (bifolios inside groups with similar illustrations) and at the higher levels (valid for all folios with similar illustrations). Other variations transcend the illustrations, meaning that they are clearly observable, but are not related to a particular secion of the MS.

Keep in mind that the most obvious change between Herbal A and Herbal B happens for the same type of illustration.

For me, the explanation is open. I also think that there is one single system, which allows for some variation.
But that is a hypothesis for which I do not yet have any evidence.

The following table lists the four most frequent 'ch/sh'-words for different sections (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.):
Herbal A     chol   chor   shol   sho
Pharma A     chol   cheol  chor   cheor
Astro        shey   chol   cheo   chy
Cosmo        chedy  chey   chol   chdy
Herbal B     chedy  chdy   shedy  chkchy
Stars B      chedy  chey   shedy  shey
Biological B shedy  chedy  shey   chey

The table demonstrates a shift from 'chol/chor' via 'cheol/cheor', 'cheo/sheo', 'chey/shey' to 'chedy/shedy'. This shift demonstrates a "gradual evolution of a single system from state A to state B" (Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 7). In your blog post, there is a similar graph illustrating the relationships between various 'dialects'. It seems that our viewpoints are not that different.