The Voynich Manuscript is a cipher because...?

[Anton]

Thread moved.

As to the subject matter of the thread: first of all, the distinction between "positive" and "negative" arguments looks to me artificial. When we speak of difference between two objects, that means that one object has or possesses something that the other one lacks, and vice versa. That's just the essence of difference. Hence if one argues that a language does not normally behave in that way or another - this is as "positive" an argument toward a cipher as it is a "negative" one.

I would like to mention some of arguments in favour of the cipher hypothesis not mentioned above in the discussion.

1) Here and there the text bears evidence of having been put down not in a single pass. For some examples and discussion refer e.g. to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

2) There is that curious phenomenon of "gallows coverage" there. Refer to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

3) There is at least one label consisting of only one character. Refer to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

It can be difficult to separate a cipher from a constructed language.

For that I proposed the criterion of the narration structure. Refer to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..