Statement: IF Voynichese does not represent natural language...

[Linda]

I'll present a statement which I believe is true, and I wonder what you think about it. Note that the statement starts with an IF clause. I don't believe the IF clause is true, but assuming this as a given, then I do believe the consequences are true.

I am a little bit confused as to which part you believe is true, but sure, let's see where it takes us. 

IF Voynichese does not represent natural language, then:
- it is still intended to look as if it does
- it is intentionally deceptive

Ok so assuming the first line to be true, i would say yes, it does still look like it does at first glance, at the word level, at least, and that this would probably not be a natural result of a structured system, ie one might expect to see equal length words or perhaps no spaces at all, at least in the type of constructed data i have in mind.

Whether it is intentionally deceptive depends on the deconstruction of the text. For instance, if the way to solve it was to write the letters of the first word below one another and then keep populating in that manner with the following glyphs, spaces included, for that many lines, i could see how it would seem to create natural word lengths without being intentionally deceptive as to the fact that the result still looks sort of natural. (But it would still be intentionally deceptive in that it was processed at all)

Some arguments are the following:
- High resemblance between Voynichese glyphs and scribal conventions, both in form and positioning.
- Weirdos on first page, one of which I have recently found a parallel for in an initial "V".
- Layout as left-aligned paragraphs following the images to a large extent

Agreed on the first point, except that we can't seem to read it.

The problem comes up when you start comparing the words and noting the glyph ordering within many of the words is similar. Why would such a large number of labels start with o? Why would so many labels be a letter or two off from the others? Why are some glyphs never found in certain positions? This is why i think there has to be some level of artificial language of some type involved, although at the same time i would think that the decryption would be a one step process, due to practicality. Such a lot of text to have to write out this way and then that way or however many steps, you would need reams of paper if the process required more than one go around to get a readable copy that wasnt a mess due to writing it in decode mode, rather than transcribing. The preferred view in terms of this practicality idea would be that they could read it straight off the page, be it natural or constructed. 

Second point not so clear to me. Yes it could be a V, or i have also seen similar in conjunction with astronomical context. Dont know about the others. They strike me as ancient, somehow.

Agreed on the third point. You had once done something with colouring the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. text that showed the different sections and i thought it fit perfectly to denote each grouping of illustrations.

So in conclusion I would say that the VM text either is natural language, a real text written in a way we don't understand
OR it is intended and designed to look as such

Is there anything wrong with these statements?

I guess those are the main choices, they dont seem wrong to me, although i think there needs to be at least third possibility to consider,

OR it is not natural language, but the fact that it looks natural was not the intention nor the design of the process.

Maybe a combination 
Maybe just the latter but a combination of constructs that when unravelled lead to both data and natural language
Maybe encoded such that spaces are part of the shuffle, which is why it still looks natural