Proposed Manuscript Chronology

[MarcoP]

We know that the reason for "dialect" differences isn't different subjects (as defined by different illustrations) nor different scribes.

Do we?

From VoynichArchive search engine:

Tell me how Currier A and Currier B are related to supposed different scribes

Prescott Currier identified two distinct statistical patterns in the Voynich Manuscript's text, which he termed Language A and Language B, and also discerned two primary scribal hands, Scribe 1 and Scribe 2, in the botanical section of the manuscript. He noted a direct correlation between Language A and Scribe 1, and Language B and Scribe 2. [url=https://voynicharchive.com/#citation-t0-2][/url]Currier's work suggested that these differences in text statistics corresponded to variations in handwriting, implying the involvement of at least two authors.For example, Currier A rarely features the bigram /ed/, while Currier B uses it frequently. While Currier initially focused on two hands, he believed there could be as many as eight scribes involved. More recent analysis by Lisa Fagin Davis has identified five distinct scribal hands, with Scribe 1 primarily writing in Language A, and Scribes 2, 3, 4, and 5 writing in Language B

I realise it is more subtle but if I understand it correctly it is the main, strongest effect and the rest are nuances and refinements.

I just meant to say that recent Voynich studies agree about the significance of the several different dialects and that they cannot be explained by the different scribes alone: all these changes in the basic statistics of Voynichese deserve to be studied and understood. I agree that this might not have been clear to Currier fifty years ago.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

This could be an indication that the two Currier’s languages A and B [3] are only a major distinction within a group of (at least) five such languages.

(two of the five languages are Herbal-A and Pharmaceutical, both by Scribe 1)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

We find that computationally derived clusters match closely to a conjunction of scribe and subject matter (as per the illustrations) ... These analyses provide strong evidence that scribe, NMF topic, and Currier language are not the same. This, perhaps, provides a more convincing argument that NMF reflects distinct semantic and linguistic features, potentially also including differences in scribe and/or dialect.

(the authors believe that the variation in a scribe's output depends on different topics)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

The relationship between the various dialects is shown below. The arrows connect the two dialects that are most similar to each other.
   
…Possibly the most interesting observation here is, that scribe 3 has some output in almost all dialects.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

The text exhibits continuous development throughout the manuscript, with vocabulary, character usage, and word frequency distributions shifting gradually from beginning to end. This dynamic character is evidenced by a single, highly connected network of similar words spanning the entire manuscript, a strong correlation between word frequency and number of similar word forms and asymmetric vocabulary distribution indicating directional evolution.