The Voynich manuscript decoding method proposal by Maria Rita Lunazzi

[davidjackson]

It's spelt brachygraphy, not that it matters I suppose. It's an early version of shorthand. I don't understand why she's using the term.
I'm impressed that it only took her 35 days from "stumbling across" the manuscript for the very first time, to deciphering and publishing a paper on it.

I take a word at random (end of first paragraph) from a random page (f19v)- cthor

I look up the glyph correspondences in the article quoted:
cth

letters composition: c+T+t = cert… (word root), cum + t…(word initial)+t … (word final) compl… (word root)+ t …( word final) complet …(word root) letter composion c+T+c = com + pl(e) + c = complect…(word root)

I'm not entirely sure how to understand this, it's not very clear.

o

o, ob, od, mod, mon, pon, no (letter with a disambiguation role)

r

Li , Le, Les, Lem when the diacritical mark is long

Put this together we get:
complect | o, ob, od, mod, mon, pon, no | Li , Le, Les, Lem (I don't think diacritic is long so it's not plural)

complectoli 

Might it be Complecto or, if we change li to r, complector? (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)

OK, so we get a word, although we have to be ambiguous about the last glyph's meaning.

But the cth is a popular glyph. In the line above we have:
cthol
chocthy

The first word would be transliterated as complect | o, ob, od, mod, mon, pon, no | l, i 
And the second as : curt, curti | o, ob, od, mod, mon, pon, no | complet | us, um

The first word basically brings us back to the very first word, despite having a different glyph, because there isn't a strong Latin transliteration.
The second word is nonsense, or at least I can't find any combination in the Latin dictionaries.