VM TTR values

[Searcher]

I agree with Marco's explanation. It is very tempting to "trim the fat" off of Voynichese, and see what's left. But there are many ways to do this, and the result will be that you're still left with the same problem, only on a different level.

 
Hi Koen!
You conducted so many experiments trying to bring the text parameters back to normal, didn't a single experiment help to achieve characteristics that were at least similar to those of a normal text? What conclusions did you draw from this?
I really admire all the statistical tests, calculations and programming tricks, but I'm really interested in what conclusions they lead to, whether these conclusions are correct. Are these conclusions about the language or about a possible encryption method? One part of the test can show that the text is rubbish, the other part can confirm that the text is not random and may make sense. What do such conflicting tests say? Is it a one conclusion or there are a few different conclusions possible?
I understand that not a single person will reveal all his/her assumptions about the results of his/her tests, but precisely because of this, it is not entirely clear whether his/herconclusions reflect all the possibilities. It is not about critique, it is about brainstorming. 

It might help to compare with another language. Let's say we don't know what Latin is, we find a Latin text and suspect someone tampered with it by adding all the frequent endings. We slash aggressively, removing everything that resembles a suffix.

I think most people understand that thoughtlessly removing all common endings will not lead to anything good, since all we get is frequent beginnings. Why not continue to search the rules? Is it really a hopeless exercise and does not lead to any positive results? So what are we doing here?

Now if we do the same to Voynichese, the scenario will be completely different. We will reduce our phoneme inventory even further, because "iin"-clusters and "q" will need to disappear entirely.

Why "-iin", but not "-dy"? Note that "-n" and "-dy" are similar with that fact that in the most cases they are preceded with a character that often is multiplied (e, ee, eee, eeee, i, ii, iii, iiii).

And keep in mind that the apparent phoneme inventory of Voynichese is already smaller than most people realize, because several characters are infrequent, so it operates on a relatively small core of characters. Now of course one could slash material until benched gallows etc become relatively frequent, and then recombine what is left into words.

In short, my main concern with this kind of approach is what your phoneme inventory would end up looking like, and how you're going to get around 20 characters.

I think that without q and sh,  I can get 21 - 22 letters in the normal ratio for an ordinary language. Of course, in this case, it will be necessary to make certain substitutions, but according to certain conditions. I'm still working on it (unfortunately, I can't devote much time to research right now), but I hope to finish it in the near future. Of course it doesn't mean that my complex of actions will lead to a positive relult in decyphering, but the fact that the percentage of letters in the text is approaching the norm makes me happy. It remains to be seen how these substitutions affect the n-gram ratio. I need to note that these actions is not something unique, some of them were quite often discussed on the forum. But, whatever one may say, it turns out that with these methods some Voynich vords will have to be combined as parts of one word. It may turn out that some labels don't contain full words, but abbreviated ones.