copy of an older, barely legible manuscript?

[Mark Knowles]

One option is "autocitation theory" which says that Voynich text is nonsense and the scribe was creating new words by altering already written ones.
But it isn't universally accepted.

Or as I would say partial-autocitation which says that some of the Voynich text is nonsense filler words and in the case of those filler words sometimes the scribe created new filler words by altering already written filler and real words. Also, I think some of the most common filler words don't need to be viewed as autocitation, but rather words picked from the standard stock of filler words that the author used. I would say having studied the most distinctive words in detail that autocitation cannot and does not explain them, so such a theory cannot explain all words in the Voynich manuscript. To reiterate it seems to me that Voynich words are words, but can be divided into two types real and filler words where the majority are filler words. I have guessed that very roughly about 80% of words are filler words and about 20% of words are real words.