The scribble above kchor doesn't look like the same handwriting (it may have been added by someone later, just as the month names appear to have been added by somebody later). and you might be reading into it that it's "fe". It might be something else. Even if it is "fe", the person who added it might have been guessing.
I notice you swapped the unbenched and benched k. Does this change your interpretation?
It's difficult to comment on your method until these issues are cleared up.
-------------
Looking specifically at kchor (which you interpreted as Nenufar):
kchor also occurs in the same position, at the beginning of the second paragraph of 7v, which doesn't resemble Nenufar in any way. It is also on 8v, 13v, 14r, 15r, 17v, 19r, 35r, and numerous other folios.
.
I see kchor differently from the way you have interpreted it. You've approached this essentially as a substitution code. I don't see evidence for this and prefer to analyze HOW this token occurs throughout the context of the manuscript.
chor appears to me to be a Voynichese "root". By this I mean it is frequently found in its raw form, but is also frequently prefaced by "k", "ok", "y", "o" and "4o" and/or appended with "g" (with only a few incidences of other glyphs). This lack of variation (the extremely limited selection of glyphs that appear before and after the "root") is not characteristic of natural language. Even "note form" text is usually not this constrained.
I notice you swapped the unbenched and benched k. Does this change your interpretation?
It's difficult to comment on your method until these issues are cleared up.
-------------
Looking specifically at kchor (which you interpreted as Nenufar):
kchor also occurs in the same position, at the beginning of the second paragraph of 7v, which doesn't resemble Nenufar in any way. It is also on 8v, 13v, 14r, 15r, 17v, 19r, 35r, and numerous other folios.
.
I see kchor differently from the way you have interpreted it. You've approached this essentially as a substitution code. I don't see evidence for this and prefer to analyze HOW this token occurs throughout the context of the manuscript.
chor appears to me to be a Voynichese "root". By this I mean it is frequently found in its raw form, but is also frequently prefaced by "k", "ok", "y", "o" and "4o" and/or appended with "g" (with only a few incidences of other glyphs). This lack of variation (the extremely limited selection of glyphs that appear before and after the "root") is not characteristic of natural language. Even "note form" text is usually not this constrained.