Can VM be written in vowelless Latin?

[farmerjohn]

Searcher, try to unite Latin letters in groups and calculate frequency for the whole group, not for separate symbols. In your case you may define group "vowels".

It's  great if you get few translations for Voynich words, I often get 50+ possibilities  Life without vowels is so... undetermined.

As for m/n calculations. I considered that y gives 1 m/n, yl gives 2, yt gives 3. In general case, letter doublings were not taken into account, d can stand both for l and for ll, but only 1 piece is added to stats. Yes, we loose a bit in precision, say 1% or even 2%, but that's ok. It's only an argument, not a proof.
But if you get some 10% difference, then something is wrong with the key. That happened to me at one stage: mn share among all consonants should be 18%, but my key gave only 10%. This led me to conclusion that t stays strictly for 2 mn's (it was only conjecture before calculations) and there should be another letter for mn - and this is l

The problem with your suggestion is that searcher is expanding the Latin abbreviation glyphs into a variety of prefixes/suffixes depending on context. Which means the VMS glyph could be two, three, or four different sets of letters in Latin. How do you calculate the frequency of the letters in a paragraph or manuscript when each word-token can have several different interpretations?

In other words, if you have something like yHeey and the y is an abbreviation that behaves differently whether it's at the beginning or end and could stand for two letters or three (in three or four different combinations each), you would have to do frequency analyses for all the different possibilities. Add the EVA-r, EVA-e and EVA-j letters as mutable context-sensitive abbreviations and the factorials for the permutations and combinations for a whole line would be large and impractical for letter-frequency analysis.


If, in contrast, you assign only one interpretation to each abbreviation (so that letter-frequency calculations are possible), then you not only violate the way abbreviations are normally applied in Latin scripts, but you get nothing but gibberish if you try to translate VMS into the Latin language (or any other language).

There are some possibilities to deal with this sort of problem
1. Do not calculate frequencies for certain letters.
2. Calculate frequencies for letter groups (not all VM glyphs are abbreviations, I believe  )
3. Match abbreviations to each possibility with certain probability.  If y is A in 50%, and BC in 50%, so y's frequency is spread among A, B and C accordingly.
4. Ignore it
I't up to author to decide if there is any sense in such calculations. For a kind of substitution cipher the answer is yes, imho