The "gallows" characters

[-Job-]

Thank you -Job-

>>You seem to be completely misinterpreting the results i posted.

I agree. But that is the reason i asked for explanation. 

I still do not understand what you mean, i apologize for that.

You write:
" higher character replaceability values" 
" valid substitutions "

Can you give an example of a replacement, what is valid and what is invalid?

Pliny's Natural History contains the words numerosis and malis. Both contain an m.

If m is replaced with s, we get nuserosis and salis. The word nuserosis does not occur in Pliny. The word salis does.

If we repeat this process for all words in Pliny's Natural History which contain an m then we find that, 7% of the time, a replacement of m with s results in a word like salis (i.e. in a word which does occur in Pliny's Natural History).

The remaining 93% yields words like nuserosis, which are not used in Pliny's Natural History. I picked nuserosis as an example and it happens to be an invalid Latin word (AFAIK). However, in some cases, a replacement of m with s results in valid Latin word which is simply not used in Pliny's Natural History. No distinction is made between these two cases.

In the results i posted, a replacement of m with s is valid about 7% of the time. That is, 7% of the words in Pliny which contain an m still occur in Pliny if m is replaced by s.

Among the sample Latin texts analyzed, 7% is among the highest values for character replacements. In the Voynich Manuscript we see several character replacements that yield more than 30% valid words.

In fact, in the VM, replacing m with r yields a known word about 50% of the time. The remaining 50% correspond to words which do not occur in the VM, and these may be words like nuserosis which are not valid Voynichese, or words that are valid Voynichese and are simply unused in the VM.

---

The portion you quoted indicates that, among the set of words used in the Latin Bible sample text that contain an 'm', replacing the 'm' with an 's' results in another word used in the same sample text about 7% of the time.

Hello Job, I expect that almost all of the Latin substitutions depend on the last letter: 
e.g. 
factum (Accusative / Neutral) factus (Nominative / Masculine)
essem (First person) esses (Second person)

While in Voynichese, substitutions are not clearly related to the position of the character in the word. Is it so?

That's exactly right, most of the valid m/s replacements occur at the end of the words.

For Voynichese it's unlikely that there is a clear a pattern.