My questions:
In your video, you interpret the Voynich Manuscript text essentially as a one-to-one substitution code and in your analysis you identify more than one of the VMS glyphs as variations of closely related sounds, which results in too few remaining glyphs to represent anything close to a normal alphabet (or set of sounds).
1. What is your reasoning for interpreting the text as a one-to-one substitution code and how do you explain the problem of missing glyphs/sounds when interpreted this way.
2. How do you resolve the problem of certain glyphs always being in specific positions in Voynichese words, when natural languages, such as those you referenced in your video (and probably also those that might be extinct), do not typically have these patterns or severe restrictions.
In your video, you interpret the Voynich Manuscript text essentially as a one-to-one substitution code and in your analysis you identify more than one of the VMS glyphs as variations of closely related sounds, which results in too few remaining glyphs to represent anything close to a normal alphabet (or set of sounds).
1. What is your reasoning for interpreting the text as a one-to-one substitution code and how do you explain the problem of missing glyphs/sounds when interpreted this way.
2. How do you resolve the problem of certain glyphs always being in specific positions in Voynichese words, when natural languages, such as those you referenced in your video (and probably also those that might be extinct), do not typically have these patterns or severe restrictions.