Number of syllables distribution

[Emma May Smith]

Hi Emma,
do you mean finding all the long words that cannot be "explained" as the concatenation of two shorter words?

Not necessarily. If a longer word was sufficiently nativized it would be pronounceable by a hypothetical speaker. Therefore it could be broken down into syllables and each of those syllables has a strong likelihood of having appeared elsewhere in the text. There would also be the possibility of discovering unusual syllable combinations even though those syllables are quite normal and the word isn't overlong.

Thus a word like [teolkedain] would be made up out the syllables [teo] + [lkey] + [dain]. It's actually not too long, and all the syllables are perfectly well known. But the combination of [teo] and [lkey] in a single word is unusual, as is the word ending [dain] for a three syllable word. But we might note that a word like [teolkechey] is made up out of [teo] + [lkey] + [chey], thus containing the same unusual combination of [teo] and [lkey]. We would also note that the word again unusually ends with [chey] as the third syllable, something only really seen in four syllable words.

In this way we can construct two sets of words: Voynich AB (which is all the words normally constructed in Currier A & B, however rare or common) and Voynich X, words which for some reason contradict the way Voynich AB words are constructed. There would be no reason for this Voynich X to be coherent, as it could come for many sources. But as Rene has pointed out elsewhere, if the main text is encoded in some way, there is possibly some words are unencoded as they lie outside the system for some reason. This is the weak point of the whole text, maybe.

About benches and e-sequences:
A possible experiment could be considering bench+e sequences as single glyphs, and see the effect on Sukhotin's algorithm (for instance). More than 90% of e-sequences follow a gallows, bench, or benched-gallows glyph. A difficulty would be deciding what to do with benched-gallows: gallows appear to be clearly distinct; we can experiment with assimilating benches and 'e'; but benched-gallows?
The characters following e-sequences are almost equally split among possible vowels [oay] and other glyphs, so the outcome of the experiment is not easy to predict....

I think the easiest was to do it would be to consider the [h] as part of the [e] sequences or equal to an [e]. Then [C] and [S] and [ck, ct, cf, cp] would be counted as glyphs in their own right. Maybe also insert a null after an [e] sequence or [h] not followed by [a, y, o] and that null would be a proxy which we might hope the algorithm would discover as a vowel?

(I seem to recall that one of the vowel finding experiments did actually find [h] as a vowel!)