Which other manuscript contain the most Voynichese glyphs?

[-JKP-]

I appreciate very much your work. It is true because I know what it is to read hours and hours so many medieval masnucripts looking for some clues. I want to tell my experience: At the National Library of Spain where I work, during months I was looking into dozens of manuscripts, most written in Latin, and I realized that some letters were similar to the glyphs of the Voynich. I thought that would end up finding the solution. But one day, I closed the book that I had in my hands and I told me myself: Many learned men were familiar with manuscripts and scribal conventions in the Court of Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor, in the XVII century and they didn't find anything. I thought that if they couldn't decipher a manuscript from the XV century, I won't do it in the XXI century. 
  And suddenly there is light. I thought: they sent the Voynich to Kircher because suspected that the text was a language like hieroghyphs, something visual rather than phonetic, and Kircher believed to have deciphered the egiptian hieroglyphs.

I think it is important to figure out the relationships between Latin scribal conventions and the VMS script because it may yield clues as to which glyphs are individual glyphs and which glyphs are combination glyphs.

The Latin abbreviation for "-is" (a loop with a tail) is applied in the VMS as it is in Latin, at the ends of words and frequently at the ends of lines, and is ALSO added to a variety of glyphs, just as it is in Latin. It is not always ris or tis or cis, sometimes it is EVA-y + "is". If that is so, then maybe EVA-k and EVA-t are simply uppercase versions of the same "is" symbol and PERHAPS meant to be understood in the same way as the lowercase versions.

What this tells us is that EVA-m might not be one glyph, it might be two pieces, with different meanings, joined together, with each part meant to be understood differently.


One of the big problems with figuring out Voynich text is deciding whether a benched gallows character is one glyph, two glyphs, three glyphs, or four. If it follows scribal conventions in terms of construction, then it is probably three or four components, rather than one glyph.

The morphology of the glyphs DO follow Latin scribal conventions. The position of the scribal glyphs DO follow Latin conventions. Whether their deconstruction (whether they are combination glyphs) is meant to follow Latin scribal conventions is what I've been trying to figure out.


So, what you must realize is that whether they are individual glyphs or combination glyphs is every bit as important to YOUR theory as it is to anyone with a linguistic theory. You cannnot translate the tokens unless you know how many parts are within each one.