Discussion of "The Voynich Manuscript: Symbol roles revisited"

[bt2901]

It occured to me that one can produce a somewhat strong counterargument to the "ligatures" theory. I'll quote Emma here:

Another similar environment are the so–called “key–like sequences” where a series of individual glyphs is written in a row or column. The meaning of these sequences is unknown, but they focus on the glyphs alone rather than as part of a word. There are four such sequences considered to be original to the manuscript: 49v shows multiple [y] but no [a]; the repeating sequence on 57v contains [y] but not [a]; 66r shows multiple [y] but no [a]; and 76r contains neither [y] nor [a].

I checked these above-mentioned pages:

* 49v contains [f], [k], [p], [d], [r]; no [m], [q], [n], [t], [g] 
* 57v contains everything save for [q] and [g]; it has [n] but no [i]

* 66r contains [f], [p], [d], [r], [t] and has no [k], [m], [q], [n], [g], [i]
* 76r contains [k], [d], [r], [q]; no [f], [p], [m], [n], [t], [g]

These observations slightly support [g] being ligature of [cd] and [n] being ligature of [i ] and somewhat contradict the ligatureness of everything else.