Syllabification

[Sam G]

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

Could you please explain how this can be clear if we don't understand a single word in Voynichese?

Okay... let's start with this: do you honestly believe that every ciphertext in existence has a glyph-for-glyph mapping onto the Roman alphabet that makes it pronounceable?  Because this is what you and others seem to be arguing here, and if you seriously believe this to be true then I don't really know what I'm supposed to say.

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

The structure (morphology, regularity and patterns) is not the meaning (the message). While the structure may be more or less evident (and my opinion rather shifts for "less" here), the message still stands obscured.

That you don't understand it doesn't mean it was the author's intention to make it obscure.  All texts in languages that you can't read are obscure to you - that says nothing about the intentions of the people who wrote them.

As for the derivation of some of the VMS symbols from Latin abbreviations - this is likely, but it is by no means "established".  There is a good deal of researchers who would prefer to refrain from this derivation. Actually, if we consider EVA y, this is a shape of the Arabic digit "nine". I don't know if the Latin abbreviation symbol was derived from the digit or it is a standalone invention, but it is certainly not "established" whether the VMS script inherits the abbreviation or the digit. In my opinion, this is the former case, where the y shape is actually comprised of the c with the tail modifier (as suggested by Currier and recently revived by Cham), so as to mask the real glyph composition behind the "well-known" abbreviation symbol. But this is nothing more than a working hypothesis and it is simply not scientifically correct to dub it "established". In science, "established" means proven, consistently reproducible and independently verifiable. In fact, there are too few really established things about the Voynich Manuscript.

Well, you're free to believe what you want of course.  I've seen enough evidence to show that the VMS script is, broadly speaking, Latin-based, and we can throw Arabic digits in with "Latin" if you like, which makes the argument about EVA <y> irrelevant.  The point is that the script was clearly devised by someone who knew how to write Latin, a point which I'm not sure if you're actually disputing, or if you're just trying to nitpick.