Single Leg Gallows

[Torsten]

However, in the 1970's Currier already demonstrated that p and f are not alternatives for t and k, and more recently, Lisa did some more stats from which she concluded that the following would explain a lot:

f is an alternative form for te  and p is an alternative form for ke.
(There is no typo here).

In my view, the proposed replacements—interpreting f as an alternative form of te and p as an alternative form of ke—introduce several additional issues rather than resolving existing ones:
1. Increased Repetition:
Substituting rare glyphs (f and p) with more common sequences (te and ke) increases overall redundancy in the text, pushing it further toward excessive repetition. This could reduce the already limited entropy of the script, weakening arguments for meaningful linguistic content.
2. Glyph System Complexity:
The Voynich script already includes multiple sets of related glyphs with overlapping functions. For example, ch appears to behave like sh, and we see patterned series such as i/ii/iii/iiii, e/ee/eee, y/o, r/s etc. This suggests that the gallow glyphs may not be exceptional in function, but instead participate in a broader system of visually similar variants. Replacing f and p with distinct multi-character sequences may oversimplify a more nuanced internal logic.
3. Word Length Distortion:
On average, words in the first line of a paragraph are longer (5.45 characters) than those in subsequent lines (5.07 characters). If f is replaced with te and p with ke, this discrepancy becomes even more pronounced.
4. Contextual Behavior of Gallow Glyphs:
There is also a notable positional pattern: when a gallow glyph follows EVA-l, the most frequent forms are k (10%) and f (7.7%), while p (2.5%) and t (1.5%) occur less frequently. This suggests that f behaves more similarly to k than to p, undermining the logic behind grouping f with te and p with ke.