The predictability of glyphs in labels agrees with that of vords

[Sam G]

A morpheme is the smallest grammatical unit in a language.
Morphemes in the corpus are easily identifiable. Voynichese glyph combinations are very positional aware within vords  –  glyph groups are non-trivial in their internal positioning. We can identify, and have identified, a long list of suffixes and prefixes within Voynichese. We know that certain glyphs only appear as suffixes; we know that certain glyphs only appear as prefixes; and we know that other glyphs are free form. We have also identified (via the CLS theorem) that glyphs appear in a certain pattern.
We assume these are bound morphemes because they obey certain rules of positioning. (We can make no assumptions about words that do not include such bound morphemes as we are unable to identify a meaning for such unbound morphemes, but such vords are relatively few in nature).

I don't think it's so obvious what's a morpheme and what isn't.  For instance, in English, "faster" can be broken into "fast" and "er", "singer" can be broken into "sing" and "er", but "lumber" can't be broken into "lumb" and "er" - it's just one morpheme, "lumber".  That words in the VMS can be divided into subunits that recur in many different words does not necessarily mean that these subunits constitute affixes or morphemes in a grammatical sense (although I suspect that they do in many cases).

Also, if there's no problem with terms like morpheme, grammar, prefix, suffix, phonotactic structure, etc. - then is it really necessary to speak of "vords" instead of simply words?