Discussion of "A possible generating algorithm of the Voynich manuscript"

[Torsten]

My point is that initial-initial repetition, final-final repetition, and word-break combinations have the same cause. The cause is that words co-occur with similar ones. This means that word-break combinations are just another samples of local repetition.

As shown by the histogram above, this is not the case at least for the most prominent combination -y.q-. It is not caused by words co-occurring with similar ones.

You misunderstood what I mean with "words co-occur with similar ones". Word generation rule 3 is "Combine two source words to create a new word" (see Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 10). Rule 3 means that it is possible to copy words or parts of words. See for instance the sequence <You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.> in line 18v.P.2. I would argue that <okshy> is a copy of <ot> (modifed to <ok>) from the previous line and also a copy of <shy>. I would also argue that the next token <qokchy> is a copy of the final <-y> in <okshy> (modified to <q->) and also of the whole <okshy>-token (modified to <okchy>).

On the other hand, I guess your argument works for initial-initial repetition and final-final repetition.

See for instance sequences like <You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.> in line f99r.P2.7 or <qokedy.qokeedy.qokoy.qotedy.otedy.qokedy.qokedy.qokal> in line f108r.P.31.

A general principle of the self-citation method is to copy glyph sequences and to avoid obvious repetitions by replacing glyphs with similar ones (see Timm 2015, p. 5). 

This idea seems compatible with pairs like t/k or r/s, but 'q' cannot systematically replace (or by replaced by) any other symbol: no other symbol behaves similarly. If you replace a random symbol with 'q' you are almost certain to obtain an illegal word (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). But if you consider the idea that the glyph is added as a prefix to a word staring with o-, when following -y, you could get something closer to what can be observed.

This is exactly my point. It is not possible to replace <q> with another glyph since <q> didn't work like other glyphs.