The rarity of consecutive repeated glyphs in Voynicese is certainly an issue with this approach.
There are other problems as well: the list posted by Geoffrey leaves out about 7% of EVA: it does not "account for the overwhelmingly vast majority of the Voynich ms text". 7% is more or less equivalent to the frequency of 'o' in English (the fourth most frequent character).
As You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., the alphabet one needs to get a reasonable coverage of Voynichese is considerably larger than the ordinary Latin alphabet. Rene suggested that the hypothetical verbose cipher should then be homophonic (or, I add, include nulls). Maybe it is possible that the scribe, having different options to encode the most frequent characters and/or being able to add nulls, could make his choice in such a way that repeated characters are avoided, solving the problem pointed out by kckluge. This scenario seems to imply that the encoder had a conscious or unconscious idea of how Voynich words should look like and tried to stick to it (something comparable with Timm and Schinner's theory?).
Another issue with Geoffrey's list is that decoding is not deterministic: e.g. [qok] can encode a single character, or two characters as [qo][k]. Same for [qot] vs [qo][t].
Also, treating '[e]' as encoding a plain-text character is not compatible with the many occurrences of 'eee'.
There are other problems as well: the list posted by Geoffrey leaves out about 7% of EVA: it does not "account for the overwhelmingly vast majority of the Voynich ms text". 7% is more or less equivalent to the frequency of 'o' in English (the fourth most frequent character).
As You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., the alphabet one needs to get a reasonable coverage of Voynichese is considerably larger than the ordinary Latin alphabet. Rene suggested that the hypothetical verbose cipher should then be homophonic (or, I add, include nulls). Maybe it is possible that the scribe, having different options to encode the most frequent characters and/or being able to add nulls, could make his choice in such a way that repeated characters are avoided, solving the problem pointed out by kckluge. This scenario seems to imply that the encoder had a conscious or unconscious idea of how Voynich words should look like and tried to stick to it (something comparable with Timm and Schinner's theory?).
Another issue with Geoffrey's list is that decoding is not deterministic: e.g. [qok] can encode a single character, or two characters as [qo][k]. Same for [qot] vs [qo][t].
Also, treating '[e]' as encoding a plain-text character is not compatible with the many occurrences of 'eee'.