davidjackson wrote:I meant, the "plaintext" word under discussion could be a badly inked word similar to this one - an o before he drew the r the wrong way round and blobbed the rest.
Sorry, David, you will have to show me. There are no letters in that token that look like Voynich glyphs. It's not just the first part that is unusual. It doesn't look like Arabic or Greek or Glagolitic either. The closest thing I can see, although I am not sure that is what is intended, is Latin characters.
Not a single one of the glyphs looks like a VMS glyph. None of them look like reversed letters either (I can't see anything that looks like a reversed Voynich r and the last char has a different stroke order, slant, and shape from a normal d). So if there are no Voynich glyphs, how can it be "similar to" oram?
...
This one that Wladimir posted on the other side is different in that four Voynich glyphs can be distinguished. The only one in doubt is between t and ear. So we have t*ear. It's possible the little hook on the bottom right of the t is another e, in which case the mangled glyph might be the left part of a badly drawn sh with that thing at the top being the cap. The sh was sometimes drawn strangely and with strokes in different orders, although it's not usually that angular.
So, the example below DIFFERS from the above example in that there is only one messy part, the rest is readable as Voynich glyphs. In contrast, the example that René posted has no shapes that look like Voynich glyphs: