(17-12-2018, 03:09 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The main problem remains, as you also indicate, that we really don't have the basis yet. Currier's observations have not been double checked and remain parrially vague and incomplete. We don't know whether there are abrupt changes or evolutions and how they manifest.
On the agenda for 2019?
La la la I see NOTHING...
Had no time over w/e due to pre Xmas stuff, still intend to attempt...
But, more importantly, talking about the abrupt changes vs evolutions....the actual graphs presented are absolutely appalling and it is SO difficult to even guess the degree of overlap between Currier A and B. I mean, I don't question the rigour of the statistics but the 3D graphs are just awful...even the little labels overlap so we don't even know exactly WHICH folios are in question....we need a list of those with a confidence interval for each to even begin to judge properly.
Then we need to consider VViews proposal that the intermediate folios may consist of a mixture of A and B in different places. I personally am pretty sure that is true for Quire 10 at least.
Then we need to take seriously Rene's suggestion that we should ditch the Currier classification entirely.
There seem to be some characteristics that offer a good classification and separation between A and B and others that are not so good. This point appears to me to be important.
So, why don't we, as an interim measure, use presence or absence of the apparently best diglyph, EVA ed? Call the results a and b or even Za and Zb in honour of the originator, then use that as a working method to determine the location of the different "languages" or "hands" in the intermediate folios?
Maybe I should have put this elsewhere but I have been thinking a lot about it and need to state it somewhere.
Shoot me down by all means if I am wrong here btw.