[split] The Zipf law and the Voynich Manuscript

[Stefan Wirtz_2]

I'm writing to this new reply because I see a substantial problem in most statistic calculations and countings and all "conclusions" from those:
numbers just appear as page counts in some corners of the VMS pages; there is not any numerical digit in the whole texts. It is said that all pages' numbers have been applied later by some researcher (who had lost a good 20 of them afterwards).
This may allow the conclusion that the VMS language system has no own numerical digits' set, which was not quite unusual in earlier times.

So or so, all possible quantifications in VMS texts must be written in full words --
this immediately impacts text quality, repetitions and predictabilities in comparison to all modern texts and languages who "outsourced" their quantifications into (arabic) number systems and do not lead longer "text values" with them.
Was this really taken into account by Zipf, entropy or any other calculating approaches?

Or in other words(!):
if you had no idea of Latin and would find text passages filled with "MCCCLVIII", "MDCXXIV", "MDCCLXII", "DCCCLV" and such, what will be your judgement about
- Zipf distribution
- entropy and predictability
- Latin being a natural language or not?

As far as we know the VMS texts (exactly not), they might as well be catalogue pages crowded with quantities and even prices; 
the most common words may mean "one" or "ten" or "thousand" as well as any other option.
And whoever imagines there may be "recipes" in it, urgently needs lots of quantifications for ingredients. How else?

So, apart from the more lower information value of "Zipf" and entropy acrobatics, I see not any valid proof for Voynichese being a real language or not within those statistics.