In the cases such as these, where we fail to understand the common practice (of plain text-to-Voynichese translation) it is not the common practice, but the "exceptions" what probably may enlighten us, if we accept that those "exceptions" are there for a reason.
That two gallows can be in a row is not something we should neglect because it happens rarely. On the contrary, it is a most valuable piece of information, adding to our understanding what behavior gallows can exhibit and what they can't.
I'll try to clarify this consideration with a simple example. Consider the system of Roman digits and imagine that some practical book (mentioning many quantities by way of numbers) is using that to represent numbers. How often will you encounter the sequence such as MM? Probably only once or twice in the book, just because 2000 is not some quantity that is very frequently used in the book, it deals mostly with units, tens and hundreds. Yet MM is a perfectly valid sequence in the Roman system.
Off-hand, what does the fact that two gallows can follow in a row within a single vord allow us to conclude? It allows us to conclude, at least, that:
a gallow is not a simple operator applied to the subsequent string of characters;
OR
at least, that it is not such operator in all cases;
OR
if a gallows is an operator, then such operators can be nested.
Not very definite, you see, but still better than nothing. And a good piece of information to combine with my idea of gallows' coverage (see the adjacent thread about gallows). BTW, in the Recipe section where the distance between the lines is so small, it becomes much less propable that "coverage" is idle embellishment and more probable that it is introduced on purpose.
That two gallows can be in a row is not something we should neglect because it happens rarely. On the contrary, it is a most valuable piece of information, adding to our understanding what behavior gallows can exhibit and what they can't.
I'll try to clarify this consideration with a simple example. Consider the system of Roman digits and imagine that some practical book (mentioning many quantities by way of numbers) is using that to represent numbers. How often will you encounter the sequence such as MM? Probably only once or twice in the book, just because 2000 is not some quantity that is very frequently used in the book, it deals mostly with units, tens and hundreds. Yet MM is a perfectly valid sequence in the Roman system.
Off-hand, what does the fact that two gallows can follow in a row within a single vord allow us to conclude? It allows us to conclude, at least, that:
a gallow is not a simple operator applied to the subsequent string of characters;
OR
at least, that it is not such operator in all cases;
OR
if a gallows is an operator, then such operators can be nested.
Not very definite, you see, but still better than nothing. And a good piece of information to combine with my idea of gallows' coverage (see the adjacent thread about gallows). BTW, in the Recipe section where the distance between the lines is so small, it becomes much less propable that "coverage" is idle embellishment and more probable that it is introduced on purpose.