Could "a" be a ligature?

[Dana Scott]

The idea that [a] = [ei] is fairly widespread, I think.  One point in its favor is that there are so many ambiguous cases that can't be resolved clearly as either [a] or [ei], but instead fall somewhere in between.  If there were a meaningful distinction between [a] and [ei], these cases should have caused confusion (I'd argue that the absence of any radically stylized forms for common vords suggests that such distinctions couldn't generally be worked out from context).  But apparently these cases didn't cause a problem (presuming Voynichese "worked").

For what it's worth, I suspect that [oi] and [ai] might also be interchangeable, on similar grounds, with [oi] being more deliberate and [ai] hastier or more cursive.  If so, this could point to a dynamic in which the beginning of a line was slower and more laborious to encode (so that [oi] is more common there), while the later part of a line "fell into place" as the ending was reached (so that [ai] is more common there).  I mean this to include cases with flourishes attached, e.g. [ar]/[or], [al]/[ol], etc.  But I don't mean to suggest that [a] can be substituted for any [o] -- just an [o] followed by [i], with the anticipated [i] influencing the form of the second stroke of the [o].

Meanwhile, word-final [o] and seem likely to be interchangeable as well, with [b] = [e*] and [n] = [i*] where
[/b][*][b]is a particular flourish.  The variation between [o] and [b] would then be analogous to the variation between "closed" and "open" forms of [n].  But I'm not sure how to reconcile that with [oi] = [ai].

 

Yes, [b]a could be a ligature of ei. In fact, that is how the scribes wrote the text for a in the VMS, using two written strokes. I would agree that the observations you make are valid; however, there is a question of when it is best to decide which option to choose. Presumably, any language written manually in a script form of the alphabet would intuitively display examples of this dilemma, since no two hands would be exactly the same. I would say that it is much easier to make a decision as to which letter(s) are the correct choice one the language is learned and clearly understood. When the basic language is unknown, and if presented with a choice of character(s) in manual handwritter, I would probably make a best guess initially, and then update if necessary once the language is well understood. Otherwise, trying to "fix" a decision before the language is clearly understood may take a great deal of effort. Better to finalize choices at the latter end of the analysis, I believe.   
[/b][/b][/b]