Yeah I get it 
There's a chance Voynichese is highly synthetic. Take your example of Scandinavian articles. It looks like there may be no equivalents (in frequency/positioning...) to articles in Voynichese, so maybe it's more like the Scandinavian system. "Skog" (forest) vs. "skogen" (the forest). Like that you get lots of -en at the end of words.
Here's the problem though. If we assume that recurring parts of Voynichese words are grammatical bits, then what's left for the semantic bits? In other words, if we omit the parts of Voynichese that may be grammatical, then is there enough body and variety left to express actual vocabulary?
One might even turn it around and wonder whether Voynichese may not rather be highly analytic?
There's a chance Voynichese is highly synthetic. Take your example of Scandinavian articles. It looks like there may be no equivalents (in frequency/positioning...) to articles in Voynichese, so maybe it's more like the Scandinavian system. "Skog" (forest) vs. "skogen" (the forest). Like that you get lots of -en at the end of words.
Here's the problem though. If we assume that recurring parts of Voynichese words are grammatical bits, then what's left for the semantic bits? In other words, if we omit the parts of Voynichese that may be grammatical, then is there enough body and variety left to express actual vocabulary?
One might even turn it around and wonder whether Voynichese may not rather be highly analytic?