Mathematical Attempt to Remove Impact of Alphabet Differences

[davidjackson]

I think we can postulate that Jaskiewicz is barking up the wrong tree without the use of advanced calculus. He assumes that the Voynich is a natural language in an invented alphabet; this can be disproved by the two simple facts of LAAFU (or internal consistency of lines) and the strong placement affinity of glyphs within vords, neither of which appears in any known and discussed natural language. 
However, even if we continue with the thought experiment, the study only examines letter (glyph) distribution. The study does not clarify which transcription alphabet was used; nor whether benchmark glyphs were separated out in the transcription alphabet, a common error. This suggests that such matters did not present themselves to the author, meaning a fundamental (and very common) error crept into his study from the very beginning.

Jaskiewicz comes to the conclusion that

The language from the Voynich manuscript is based on Asian language - it is also possible that it was somehow influenced by European languages.

I would suggest that this wide-ranging statement suggests that he did not have much confidence in his own findings.

The approach may very well work if you want to compare natural languages that use different alphabets - for example, Spanish written in Arabic characters. I doubt very much that it will present anything we do not already suppose in the Voynich case, as the supposition that it is a transliterated natural language can logically be discarded.