Syllabification

[Sam G]

Even if one puts apart the cipher theory, I am afraid that no syllabification is possible without our understanding of the alphabet. There is no confirmation that any of the transcription alphabets, EVA included, accurately represent the real alphabet adopted by the author.

We can't know it perfectly of course, but the distinction between consonant and vowel does seem quite clear.

This fact suggests nothing. A person wishing to conceal his message could well use these letters to represent consonants, for an additional layer of obscurity.

Everything about the script suggests that it was intended to emphasize the structure of the text, not obscure it.

Besides, EVA e is not like Roman "e". It is like Roman "c".

And "c" is an "e" without the crossbar.  And there's a pretty clear reason why the scribe omitted the crossbar - the whole system of straight-stroke and curved-stroke letters which follow <a> and <e> respectively.

If the text is abbreviated, then single characters would represent character blocks, like 9 (EVA y) represented "us" in the end of the word and "con" in the beginning of the word in medieval Latin documents.

Among other problems, there aren't enough different glyphs for the text to be abbreviated Latin or anything else, although the shapes of the letters do derive from symbols used in Latin abbreviation (and the Roman alphabet).

Really, the fact that EVA transliteration makes the text basically "pronouncible", as would likely any other transliteration scheme that mapped <a>, <e>, <o>, and <y> to vowels and the other letters to consonants (and considered <i> as a modifier), is by itself strong evidence that its implicit assignment of consonant and vowel status is basically correct.

The "pronouncibility" of the EVA transliteration is mere phantom, partly because the transcription is not fully matched to the Latin alphabet (e.g. substitute "c" for EVA e, as indicated above, and you will lose this pronouncibility at once),

The fact that there's a mapping that makes the text pronounceable at all is significant.  If you don't think so, try finding a simple letter-for-letter mapping to make, say, the Beale Ciphers pronounceable.

The fact that the pronounceable mapping preserves the obvious consonant/vowel distinction in the Latin-derived VMS script is also significant.

and partly because EVA is Latin-alphabet centric - while there is no confirmation that the Latin alphabet was the basis for the Voynichese script. For example, characters like a, c, i, o are found in the Cyrillic alphabet, characters l, d , r, y, q are like Arabic digits, and the rest of the characters are not found in the Latin alphabet at all.

I'd say that being Latin-centric and excess focus on EVA is the worst approach for those who wish to explore the plain text  language path. EVA has quite little to do with the real Voynichese alphabet, and absolutely nothing with the Voynichese language (if any).

You are now contradicting what you wrote above, about EVA <y> deriving from Latin abbreviations.  I think it's been well-established for a long time, and is obvious to begin with, that the VMS script derives from medieval Latin abbreviations and from the Roman alphabet, and that there is really no need to look further afield for the origins of the shapes of the letters.  The tables in D'Imperio show this well enough.  

The way that these letter shapes are used is different and the shapes have been tailored somewhat to fit the structure of the text and to produce an internally consistent system.  I think this aspect of the VMS is pretty well-established at this point.

Second, the entropy is too low.

As I noted in another thread, it is technically not reliable to speak of (character) entropy in respect to a written language when we don't know what is that language's alphabet.

We know the alphabet well enough to show that the entropy is going to be low no matter how you combine or split the glyphs.  The low entropy is really just telling you how rigid the phonotactic structure (i.e. rules governing how the glyphs may be combined to form words) is, and this can be understood without using math at all.