The Voynich Manuscript is a cipher because...?

[Emma May Smith]

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.

Except that there are not only two possibilities. Also, negatives and positives are never black and white, more like arguments for and against to be weighed and considered. A lot of arguments against a linguistic solution can be put forward as problems that need to be solved, but they may in no way add up to an argument for a cryptological solution.

I really think the positive and negative split is crucial if we're not simply going to get lost in a limbo of "I think it is a cipher because it doesn't look like any language I know!" It's a logical fallacy of lack of imagination.

Of your three points in favour of a cipher, I agree that point 2) is good. But point 1) is ambiguous, and point 3) is incredibly thin.