A key to understand the VMS

[nickpelling]

Torsten: so what you are saying is that even though Voynichese is autocopied from itself, the "itself" from which it is autocopied (i.e. that seeds the copy) contains near-universal adjacency rules which are then preserved in the autocopying?

No, adjacency rules are not preserved from the seeding part they are a result of the autocopying process. If a word is copied and some glyphs are replaced with similar ones the order of the glyphs stays unchanged. 

Well... if your starting point is akin to that of a verbose cipher (e.g. where al ol ar or qo are all irreducible tokens, as per Curse 2006 etc), you're starting with (what to nearly everybody else's eyes looks like) a set of adjacency rules within those irreducible tokens.

And then you run into problems parsing a and o, because they appear both inside and outside your core set of irreducible tokens. What is someone to make of ok, ot, of, op? And - even more problematically - how about aiin and aiir family words? Shouldn't they all be irreducible tokens too?

For me, the answer seems more likely to be yes than no: but having lots of carefully chosen irreducible token blocks formed of what look like sets of letters is something that is as close to verbose cipher as it is far away from everything else, linguistically.

Which would seem to lead you to the position that what you're describing is autocopying where the seeding text rules are indistinguishable from verbose cipher.

Which would rather reduce the need for autocopying at all, surely?