Morten, I've created FOUR transcripts of the VMS script. I have looked at EVERY SINGLE glyph in the manuscript many many times and there is nowhere in the manuscript where m is drawn like that or combined like that.
It does not look like m at all (or m combined with long-c). It does look like a normal medieval rotated-m or z. I've looked at THOUSANDS of manuscripts so I'm familiar with what they did and what they didn't do and your idea is quite far outside anything I've seen in the VMS. A few of the glyphs are a bit mangled, but they are not mangled like that. They vary in predictable understandable ways. Your glyph idea simply isn't close enough to reality.
Other than the "c" which is a normal Latin letter, the letters in this word do not look like Voynich glyphs. There IS a possible Voynich glyph in the next word.
It does not look like m at all (or m combined with long-c). It does look like a normal medieval rotated-m or z. I've looked at THOUSANDS of manuscripts so I'm familiar with what they did and what they didn't do and your idea is quite far outside anything I've seen in the VMS. A few of the glyphs are a bit mangled, but they are not mangled like that. They vary in predictable understandable ways. Your glyph idea simply isn't close enough to reality.
Other than the "c" which is a normal Latin letter, the letters in this word do not look like Voynich glyphs. There IS a possible Voynich glyph in the next word.