Need advice for testing of hypotheses related to the self-citation method

[ReneZ]

Ie. if you have a 'modification rule' which adds the prefix 'ok' 50% of the times a prefix is added, 'qok' 25% of the times and 'cho' for the remaining 25% you'll end up with qok/ok/cho prefixes in those proportions whatever initialization string you started from (even starting from a null string).

Here, you initialise with a set of 'word chunks'. This is different, and interesting, but it remains an initialisation procedure. 

We still have to end up with a closed alphabet. I think that we may safely assume that this was defined before the text writing (including any initialisation of the word modification procedure).

After having defined the alphabet, what would be the next step?

The problem is now moved to finding the correct set of word chunks that would do it.
I am not recommending really trying to do this, but thinking about it more may already point out the great difficulties this will cause. 

Let's look at it in yet another way.

I assume people are familiar with the word connectivity trees that Torsten has generated.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

This tree could very well be the result of a self-citation method.
Now let's look at the initialisation.

Are the 'seed' words among the words in this graph?
How many? Where are they?

One extreme would be just one or two.

Torsten's own generator, which should correspond with his best guess, was between five and ten IIRC?

Should they be at the centres around the most frequent words?

Another extreme is that many or most of the words were set up using self-citation changes, before the writing was even started.

In my considered opinion - and I have always been outspoken about this - the self-citation method is not a resonable 'solution' of the Voynich MS. 

The argument that the initialisation is not a problem, it was just done 'somehow', for me is not satisfactory. 
It may not be the biggest problem (because I think that the whole thing cannot work), but it is being consistently swept under the carpet ;-)