Currier A and B

[julian]

I don't know if the top-10 is the same for Currier A and B (judging by Julian's thread it is not, but his methodology was not correct and he has not posted updated results yet).

The argument I expressed above - it is an attempt to shed more light on the nature of the underlying defference between A and B.

Frequent vords are frequent vords. It is of no surprise that they appear both in A and B. Like the word "rot" appears in English, Swedish, German etc. Moreover, two different plain text words may map into the same pair of overlay words with two different procedures. Like plaintext 1 via procedure A yields ciphertext 1, plaintext 2 via procedure A yields ciphertext 2, but, at the same time, plaintext 1 via procedure B yields ciphertext 2 and plaintext 2 via procedure A yields ciphertext 1. Furthermore, if some nomenclator is in place, then frequent words would just map into the same ciphertext in both A and B.

I have been converting my analysis code to use the Takeshi EVA transcription, from GC's Voyn_101, hence the delay. I think the methodology was sound in that the comparison was between text on folios in Currier A and Currier B, initially with Herbal/Recipes but then in response to advice, more recently Recipes/Recipes.

The original interest in doing this was to see how Currier A "maps" to Currier B, in the sense of how to convert an A word to a B word so that the word frequencies in the converted A words matches those of the B words. It seemed to me that this might be a good clue as to how the cipher works.

So, as explained elsewhere, if the most common word in A is "daiin" and in B is "aiin", and we say they are the same plaintext word (seems reasonable), then the glyph "d" in Language A must be a null ... but this may be flawed reasoning :-)

I do think that the language differences are very important to try to understand.