Everything I see points to alphabet (i.e. 1 glyph = 1 segmental phoneme, basically)
- Number of glyphs matches alphabets
- Apparent pronounceability and consonant/vowel alternation when viewed as alphabetic
- Apparent derivation from Roman alphabet and Latin abbreviation means the script creator was familiar with alphabetic writing
- Structure and symmetry of the glyph set is similar to what is seen in phoneme inventories of natural languages
- Word length
The only other possibility is that glyphs represent sub-alphabetic units. Stolfi thought the words were likely monosyllables, apparently because many words have a tripartite structure which could suggest that a word represents a CVC syllable. Actually that's just a guess since I haven't yet found where he laid out his reasoning for his view in detail, if he ever did. I can maybe imagine that a medieval Latin scribe might have chosen to represent a complex monosyllable by way of analogy with a multisyllabic word, but my guess is that words actually are multisyllabic in many cases.
