From "decryption" to "translation"

[Anton]

I am suggesting that "otol" can represent numerous different words, all within the same ms text. It could represent "oikos" on one page, "akase" on another page, "augos" on another page, and so on, and so on.

If we add this, i.e. different spelling, to different meanings (i.e. homonyms), then of course it becomes significantly more complicated, and more degrees of freedom for the interpreter do arise. But what it left is to demonstrate that in action, on a more or less extensive fragment of text and respecting grammar. I do not think anyone has yet been successful in that.

Because people who are very familiar with the language and the script, largely know what word to expect to occur in a given place anyway.

Can we assert that the author was very familiar with the script? I do not see solid grounds for that. On the contrary, the last line of f116v, where only part of it is in Voynichese, suggests that either the author was not very comfortable with the script or that the expressive power of the script was very limited (e.g. not suitable for German language or not suitable to convey meaning of "so", "nim", "gas" and "mich").

what I expected to see IF it was linguistic, just didn't seem to be there, at least not on the vord level.

If a writing conveys meaningful message, then it simply must be linguistic. Just it can be "oddly linguistic". Consider, for example, a dictionary. Is it linguistic? Yes, it is. Does it resemble something like the Bible or the "Origin of Species"? No, it does not. It is common to approach the VMS as if it were a systematic narrative, and to expect relative things from it, but what grounds are there for such an approach? Actually, not very solid ones.