[split] Verbose cipher?

[RenegadeHealer]

Nice work, Geoffrey. I'm intrigued and entertained. Whether or not it pans out, what you've built is a consistent, logical, testable model for phonetically mapping Voynichese characters, built on solid facts about the properties of the text. Also, from my perspective as a self-taught amateur at linguistics, I'm seeing a solid understanding of the basics of phonology. It's at least a good start; congratulations on constructing a model worth testing (and able to be tested!) at all.

This is probably a matter of taste and personality, but seeing people present fleshed-out ideas about the VMs, and then receive critical feedback, does not, per se, make me cringe. I only cringe when someone receives feedback on their ideas less than gracefully. Like in judo, there is much to be learned by taking a swing at the VMs and missing, understanding why you missed, and observing others do the same. I don't think anybody should be shamed for trying, as long as they receive all feedback graciously and seriously. 

A couple of questions, Geoffrey:

• Where do you currently stand on the idea of EVA [f] and/or [p] being top-line variations of another glyph? In your model, you equate [f] with [k] and [p] with [t]. Last year, you and I had been toying with the idea of [f] and [p] actually being top-line variations of [d]. What made you change your mind?
  
• I'm wondering if EVA [dch] also belongs in your chart, as /kʲ/
  
• What are your thoughts on the controversial but intriguing possibility of the equivalence of EVA [a] and [y]?
  
• Suppose for a moment that [a] with no glyphs attached to the right of it — to the extent that this glyph can even be said to have an independent existence — is the same as [y]. Koen and Marco have presented evidence for each in the series [a*] being a separate letter, and your model expands this series into a set of vowel sounds. Wouldn't it make sense, then, that isolated [a] and [y] have the same pronunciation, and both of them represent the most neutral or empty vowel possible? /a/ is definitely a possibility, but I wonder if some type of schwa or barely-pronounced vowel sound could also be it. I'm thinking of the way the Cyrillic alphabet's various yers have lost their status as true vowels, or the way Mandarin Chinese Pinyin Romanization uses "i" after a sibilant to indicate the near lack of a vowel. Or, for a more familiar example to many here, the way Germans pronounce the letter "e" at the end of a word. I also wonder if unattached [a] or [y] could be a wildcard vowel sign, which can be used to write a variety of different vowels, perhaps unaccented ones.
  
• If the series [o*] represents a series of voiced consonants, might there be a corresponding series of [y/a*], used to explicitly specify an unvoiced consonant? [yk], [yt], [yd], [ar], [as], [al]
  
• If [or] represents /l/, might [ar] then represent /ɫ/? This is a phonemic distinction in some of the languages under consideration, after all.
  
• I'm not quite following your logic behind [a] = /a/ and [l] = /s/, but then [al] = /a:/. I'm reminded of how in French, syllable coda "s" is not pronounced, but still lengthens the preceding vowel