Voynich Reconsidered

[dfs346]

I feel that the Voynich producer would have wished to give the scribes a simple set of instructions, whereby they could write the manuscript with minimal supervision. A relatively simple rule could be: first transcribe letters to glyphs (using some mapping prescribed by the producer), then re-order the glyphs in each "word" according to a "Voynich alphabet" (along the lines of Massimiliano Zattera’s "slot alphabet"). 

However, with Zattera's alphabet, the scribes would need to know where to place the "nomadic glyphs". For example, should a v101 glyph {8} be in slot 0, 7 or10? (In Zattera’s alphabet, all three are permitted.)

Trying to step into the Voynich producer's shoes, I could imagine that he or she might define two or more "slot alphabets": for example one for Currier's Language A, another for Language B. Then, for example, he or she might instruct the scribes of Language A to place any {8} in slot 0; and the scribes of Language B to place any {8} in slot 7. (And maybe there is a third language.)

Alternatively, the producer might have defined a "slot alphabet" for each section of the manuscript: one for the plant section, one for the "baths" section, and so on.

To test this hypothesis, we could invite Mr Zattera to re-run his program on separate subdivisions of the manuscript, suitably defined.