Can VM be written in vowelless Latin?

[farmerjohn]

I reread the whole thread, opened the 13 (!) files and my first question is why not publish on a blog like everyone else?

Ruby Novacna, you are a real hero. I don't recommend reading previous versions, except maybe the first one which contains some stats. I tried to have blog, but writing blogs should be regular and I'm not able to keep the rate.

My second question is why with your key you can't read all the text, but only some extracts?

The nature of my key (almost without vowels) implies certain ambiguity and extreme sensitivity (that is tiny changes in key mean big changes in translations). So trying to decode one given piece of text to infinity is counterproductive - for example it may contain proper nouns which are not present in dictionary and so you are stuck. In the beginning it is much more efficient to find chunks which are easier to decode and then try to decode chunks with similar words.

I also wanted to ask a question about shedy = partellus, but I saw that it was already asked and I didn't understand your answer, why does your reading produce non-existent words?

I don't remember my answer, and your question is too general so here is my current understanding:
1. Non-existent where? It's absolutely legal Latin word with diminutive suffix.
2. This non-existency is tricky thing. "Partellus" doesn't appear anywhere, ok. Voynich script also doesn't appear anywhere else is it non-existent? There is no evidence that only the script in the VMS is unique. Text, language, images may be unique too. Moreover if one does one thing weirdly, the probability that he does another thing weirdly increases.
3. In the beginning I thought VMS is normal Latin text, only with excessive use of diminutive suffixes (which is common for Medieval Latin or for colloquial language; by the way, I saw you can read Russian -  so then Russians use diminutives not only for nouns and adjectives, but also for adverbs ). Today I think that all types of suffixes are used and it's the core of my idea.
4. As of EVA-shedy, partellus. My conjecture is roughly the following (I ignorant in Latin so everything below are just my fantasies, as was witty noted by one user). In language A the author used EVA-shey for partus (as one of options). This can be considered both as noun ("part") and as passive perfect infinitive (partus esse with esse You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Also EVA-sheody is partulus. In B language the author (or another author) preferred diminutive suffix ell to ul so the diminutive form of noun had transformed to EVA-shedy, partellus. At the same time the author searched for new stylistic devices (more hell!!111) and noted that passive infinitive partus  technically is adjective (a sort of) so is subject to diminution and decided to add ell also there. This resulted in "diminutive verbs". This procedure explains why there are so many EVA-edy in language B.
For example, I currently read the beginning of last paragraph of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (shey dar shey) as partus hilaria partus.

Your reading of the label on page 84r "okar ydairol ychckhy dshedy", was of particular interest to me, because I also made a suggestion for its reading. I found two variants in your documents: "boetharius iconellorum concreatorus leporatilis", translated as "Assistant of scribe created witty images" and "Edare scholiorum strıdorus lıbertellus", translated as "Created note free of hissing sounds".
What is the reason for this change of interpretation?

The reason is simple: the key is ambiguous and very sensitive. One of the ways to fight with that is to find word meanings which fit all occurences.
Another approach is very well described in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. post by Emma May Smith. Examples: usually prefix con is used before consonants, but co before vowels - this reduces possibilities for the next letter; letter c sounds differently before hard and soft vowels - also some hint there.