The idea that it might be a defective script (an imperfect copy), leaving out important details, has definitely been mentioned many times, going back to some of the earliest researchers.
It's very difficult not to get the feeling that "something has been left out" when looking at Voynich text.
This is probably why the suggestion of abjad comes up frequently and probably also why Newbold and others have looked for microscopic shorthand and other micrographic details to try to "expand" the range of variation in highly repetitive words.
It's very difficult not to get the feeling that "something has been left out" when looking at Voynich text.
This is probably why the suggestion of abjad comes up frequently and probably also why Newbold and others have looked for microscopic shorthand and other micrographic details to try to "expand" the range of variation in highly repetitive words.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)