The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[nablator]

There are small oddities, perfectly explainable as mistakes, spelling variants, abbreviations, etc. and then there are massive inconsistencies, much less explainable: the big differences between Currier "languages" and all the many "dialects" on a smaller scale.

I think most of these large scale changes can be explained by the evolution of the script. If it was a newly invented script, it was very likely to go through various reinterpretations and optimizations when used in practice for the first time. Also true if the intent was writing down an unfamiliar language, only imagine the consequences of finding out that <of> and <'ve> are two different things half way through the manuscript 

Perhaps, but it's a bit extreme. Why would they want to:

- Omit all e on two random pages: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f36r.

- Concentrate some patterns on some pages and omit them in an entire section, for example You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has a lot of [e:h]od, [e:h]os: 14 eod, 3 hod, 2 eos, 1 hos. No [e:h]or, [e:h]ol, -eo. It is the opposite of Q13, but both are Currier language B. There are many examples of extreme concentrations and total absence of common patterns on many pages.