A key to understand the VMS

[Sam G]

Maybe you should read your first posts in this thread again. Your point was that different "grammatical forms" are typical for languages in general and that no network of similar words exists. Now your point is that maybe a language exists with a network of similar words that is comparable with the VMS. Obviously I was able to convince you that a network of similar words exists for the VMS.

I never said that there was no word network.  The question is whether such a network demonstrates that the VMS is not a natural language and if not, then how to account for it.  I have proposed both that it could be due simply to phonotactic rigidity, or due to a language in which most or all words are compounds of two or three basic elements.  Obviously we don't know enough about how the language works to decide which if either of these possibilities is correct (and it could be a combination of factors).  I am, however, fairly satisfied that there's nothing about the word network that suggests we're looking at something other than a natural language text.

The shape of letter determines in some way how the letter is used within a word or within a line or within a paragraph. ...

What's more likely is that how the words are structured has influenced the design of the script.

No. For instance 'e' is common after 'k' and 't' but not after 'p' and 'f'. Words like 'peShol' and 'feeedy' are unusually rare whereas words like 'keeedy' and 'teeedy' are common for the VMS.

A second example is  that a gallow glyph following 'l' is most likely a glyph 'k' or 'f' but not a 't' or 'p'. An example for a word using 'lk' is 'olkchedy' and an example for a word using 'lp' is 'olpchedy'.

With other words the shape of a glyph has some influence to the selection of the next glyph.

I don't see how any of these points contradict the idea that the structure of the language has influenced the design of the script.  Actually this looks like evidence in favor of the idea.

Now, how many of these properties that you have mentioned can be found in sample texts generated by your auto-copying code?  My guess is: none.

It is not necessary to guess here. I have published an App to simulate the auto-copying hypothesis. See for instance my post from 08-02-2017, 07:23 PM in the thread. In fact all of the properties I know can be explained with the auto-copying hypothesis. 

Yes, as I've already stated I've tried your app and found the text it produces to be nothing like the actual VMS text.

I'll ask once more: where are the word grids produced from texts generated using your auto-copying code?  Can you show that they are complete with no gaps, like the ones you have made for the actual VMS text, or not?  If you can't make such grids then I don't see how your auto-copying method can account for even what you seem to think is the most important property of the text, let alone the many other properties that I and others have pointed out.