The incredible unravelling of the Voynich Manuscript

[-JKP-]

...
I fully agree with this statement, but again, the criticism of my presented solution based on this is not correct in my opinion. Yes, ambiguities do result, and I am not the only one who considers a 1:1 assignment of characters to be impossible due to the structure of the Voynich text.  So ambiguities are inevitable. 
...

Ambiguities are only inevitable if your premise and your equivalency charts are used. If the VMS is encoded in a completely different way, there may not be any ambiguities.

I don't think you have convincingly made the case that the VMS is abbreviated Latin. There are numerous people in the VMS community who can read Latin, quite a few who can read medieval Latin, and two or three who know Latin very well. Those are the ones you have to convince.

I do not find medieval abbreviations to be "bewildering". It's just like learning to read music. You just have to sit down and practice. Medieval scribal abbreviations may be flexible, but they are also quite rational. It's a system, not a collection of oddities. In fact, it's easier to learn than shorthand.


Two of the biggest problems I see with your explanation so far are:

1. There is no grammar according to medieval Latin standards. You are subjectively filling in the blanks to create a rational narrative, but even with the filled-in blanks much of the translation is questionable.
   
2. When you expand the VMS text according to your tables and it does not result in a valid word, then you seem to think it's permissible to expand it even further until it becomes a valid word. This not only introduces a high degree of subjectivity, but this level of subjectivity puts you in the realm of one-way ciphers. Everyone using your method will get a different result.