It's important to note that text can be studied in itself.
First of all, it can be studied simply from the point of view of information theory.
Second, it can be studied from the linguistic point of view.
If one is not sure whether there is a meaningful message behind the text, even that can be explored (e.g. like the way that Montemurro & Zanette did it).
Of course, imagery is supportive. Or, I should say, it may be supportive. As of now, the only really supportive image that I can think of was that of the supposed abomasum in f116v. The T-O maps should have been supportive, but they have failed to be, thus far. There are promising pieces of imagery, though. One is the "Voynich pipes" diagram. The plants of my "focal set" may help us - but they may not, as well.
First of all, it can be studied simply from the point of view of information theory.
Second, it can be studied from the linguistic point of view.
If one is not sure whether there is a meaningful message behind the text, even that can be explored (e.g. like the way that Montemurro & Zanette did it).
Of course, imagery is supportive. Or, I should say, it may be supportive. As of now, the only really supportive image that I can think of was that of the supposed abomasum in f116v. The T-O maps should have been supportive, but they have failed to be, thus far. There are promising pieces of imagery, though. One is the "Voynich pipes" diagram. The plants of my "focal set" may help us - but they may not, as well.