11-08-2025, 12:21 AM
This is a very interesting line of thought, and I have a feeling that it may be relevant for a proper understanding of the text. However, it is extremely complicated (or rather: convoluted) due to the many unknowns at different levels.
This is especially true if one can 'switch off' all preferences for one idea or the other.
The infamous "Line As A Functional Unit" is mainly based on observations about properties of the text at starts and ends of lines. I think that Currier took a rather big step there. Such properties may have been the consequence of quite simple rules, without giving a specific role to the line as a whole.
However, they could still be better described in order to judge that properly.
I think that this goes to the heart of the question how much freedom the scribes may have had.
Not to mention that nowadays I guess we should more be speaking of the "Paragraph As An Island Unit".
This is especially true if one can 'switch off' all preferences for one idea or the other.
The infamous "Line As A Functional Unit" is mainly based on observations about properties of the text at starts and ends of lines. I think that Currier took a rather big step there. Such properties may have been the consequence of quite simple rules, without giving a specific role to the line as a whole.
However, they could still be better described in order to judge that properly.
I think that this goes to the heart of the question how much freedom the scribes may have had.
Not to mention that nowadays I guess we should more be speaking of the "Paragraph As An Island Unit".
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)