Linguistic Patterns Before Decipherment: A Key to Understanding Unknown Texts

[Urtx13]

Yes, this looks like a good approach, but this also has been tried hundreds of times with the Voynich Manuscript. I'm extrapolating from the frequency of some recent attempts that I know of. As far as I know, for some reason not a single one of these attempts produced any specific universally recognized breakthrough into the underlying language.

The most popular explanations I've seen for this are (in no particular order): 
- nonsensical text: hoax, glossolalia;
- not a text: visual code, etc;
- agrammatical text: inventory, list of charms;
- specific kind of cipher: one that would hide repeating patterns.

What is your take?

I agree!  Many attempts have indeed failed to find a clear pattern.
I’m not trying to decipher the content, but I would like to see if the manuscript has a measurable internal structure.
Using techniques like entropy analysis, clustering, and permutation tests, I would like to check if the three visual blocks also differ statistically, indicating internal coherence rather than randomness.

If the text were truly a random chunk (glossolalia or noise), we shouldn’t see any consistent or repeating word-level patterns. While it’s tempting to believe that “everything eventually forms a pattern” with enough data, that’s not how true randomness behaves: random sequences may show local clusters, but they lack global structural consistency.
If we detect a stable, statistically significant pattern, especially one that aligns with visual or thematic blocks, then it was likely introduced intentionally, not by chance.

In this case, I believe that techniques like clustering and LDA should be able to separate the three thematic sections of the manuscript based on the word distributions associated with each part. Topic modeling (LDA), entropy measures, and supervised classifiers (like Random Forest) may be able to detect whether the vocabulary shifts in statistically meaningful ways across sections.