Why the auto-copying hypothesis is not valid?

[stellar]

Well, if a text with 10,000 different words (=word types) is reduced to numbers in the range of 1-99,
then one could argue that 99% of the meaning is lost and only 1% is left over.


In that sense, both are methods to generate meaningless text.

To make it even more interesting....

How does one then go from a number (1-99) to a Voynichese word?

One could take a number of base patters which represent 10, 20, 30 etc.
Then, to add the units, one could have all sorts of rules:

- Add a plume to ch to make it Sh  = +1
- Add an i  = +1
- Add a e  =  +2
- Change k to t = +2
- Change f to p = +2
- Change r to l = +3

etc. etc.

Doing this, one could end up with something that looks like the output of an auto-copying process.

@ReneZ

Thanks for your reply, currently I'm working with a programmer to produce meaning out of the entire VMS and if it shows meaning for its entirety of paragraphs and labels which runs consistent to the imagery and previous ideas; following the theories in the latest facsimile of the Voynich (edited by Raymond Clemens) from which you are one of the Author's. I will feel I have an absolute proof of 99% or less than the 1% of your opinion.

How does one then go from a number (1-99) to a Voynichese word?

Simple numbers do relate to words when letters have a numerical value as in a cipher!