I'm not advocating any particular proposal here, just wanted to show that possibilities can be many.
One possibility is that ol is something different from tol, i.e. they are semantically unrelated.
In fact, the frequent approach to the Voynich analysis is to take it for granted that vords built around the same "core" are semantically related, like in a natural language words descending from the same root are semantically related. For example, "underworld" and "worldly" ar semantically related to "world". However, it's not at all known if that is true for Voynichese, and if so, then to what extent. I won't be surprised if that's not the case at all, and there are no "roots" in the linguistical sense of the word. What's suspisious is that many vords are built around just a few basic bigrams formed by a few Voynichese glyphs, mostly "a", "o", "l" and "r", sometimes also around tri- or quad-grams ending with in/ir or iin/iir (in some transcription alphabets those would be bigrams also) in the curve-line fashion (see Cham 2015), and then these are enwrapped with prefixes like "ch" or "d" and suffixes like "y", also in the curve-line fashion. This does not have strong feel of semantics-driven morphology - or, I should say, "natural-language-semantics-driven".
(27-06-2020, 03:32 PM)Searcher wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Also there is a question: What with such words as ol, or, ot, etc?
One possibility is that ol is something different from tol, i.e. they are semantically unrelated.
In fact, the frequent approach to the Voynich analysis is to take it for granted that vords built around the same "core" are semantically related, like in a natural language words descending from the same root are semantically related. For example, "underworld" and "worldly" ar semantically related to "world". However, it's not at all known if that is true for Voynichese, and if so, then to what extent. I won't be surprised if that's not the case at all, and there are no "roots" in the linguistical sense of the word. What's suspisious is that many vords are built around just a few basic bigrams formed by a few Voynichese glyphs, mostly "a", "o", "l" and "r", sometimes also around tri- or quad-grams ending with in/ir or iin/iir (in some transcription alphabets those would be bigrams also) in the curve-line fashion (see Cham 2015), and then these are enwrapped with prefixes like "ch" or "d" and suffixes like "y", also in the curve-line fashion. This does not have strong feel of semantics-driven morphology - or, I should say, "natural-language-semantics-driven".