Anyone seen this proposed solution yet? More Hebrew...

[Torsten]

Yes, I noticed that too, and Torsten mentioned that Hannig uses his "vowel" glyphs as wildcard glyphs.

Hannig writes himself about 'o' as wildcard sign: "Den Platzhalter für einen Vokal repräsentiert das Zeichen 'o'". 

It is often underestimated how difficult it is to decipher an unknown writing system using an unknown language (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). It is a common misunderstanding that it would be enough to guess the language and to confirm this guess by presenting a meaningful reading attempt. Unfortunately without knowing the writing system and the language it is always possible to invent new writing rules or to postulate an unknown dialect to explain discrepancies away. With other words as less someone knows as more easy it becomes too read something into the text. This works like a pitfall. Every new word is seen as a confirmation of the language choice. But in reality the decipherer didn't know enough to detect any mistakes.

The only way to avoid this pitfall is a simple description of what is. If the description is conducted with care and attention and observes not only what is obvious but also the small details, then this description becomes a determination which recognizes the individual element as something distinctive; it penetrates. This way it is possible to find typical patterns and to compare this patterns with known writing systems. With some luck it is possible that the patterns point to a certain language family or even to a certain language. The writing system used for the Voynich manuscript didn't behave like any known writing system or language family. There is far too much context dependency and far too much repetition.