Stop being analitical!

[Torsten]

The goal for the VMS is to learn something about an unknown script and an unknown language. If we assume the language and how the script works we literally start with the assumption that we already know half of the solution.Even if the document would indeed use Latin and shorthands we would need to find some features typically for such a document as starting point. Therefore it would be no problem if we start by searching for the most characteristic features in the first place. 

An important question for the VMS is if relations between different word types exists. Such relations did indeed exist. See for instance similar word types like chol and Shol. The word type chol occurs 396 times and the word type Shol 186 times. With other words chol is round about twice as frequent as Shol. If we check other similar word pairs like chor/Shor, chal/Shal and char/Shar we get similar results. In all this cases the word type starting with Sh instead of ch is less frequent:

chol  (396)  chor  (219) chal  ( 48) char  ( 72)
shol  (186)  shor  ( 97) shal  ( 15) shar  ( 34)

cheol (172)  cheor (100) cheal ( 30) chear ( 51)
sheol (114)  sheor ( 51) sheal ( 19) shear ( 21)

I don't see any problem if we research such patterns further. This is the only way we can learn something about the VMS.

There is nothing wrong if we would ask questions like did exceptions for this pattern exists? (Yes, some exceptions exists. See for instance cheedy vs. Sheedy.)

What is the general rule behind this pattern? 
(As more similar a word type is to one of the three most frequent words in the VMS - daiin, ol, chedy - as more frequent this word type is.)

You can't be too analytical if you wan't to research something new. The only danger is to interpret something into the unknown script.