f17r

[oshfdk]

In the picture, you can clearly see this crossbar, even if it is a little too big, but he also wrote very small. You can follow the trace exactly and even see where he lifted the pen, blue arrow.

There is a crossbar, but on MSIs it is substantially different from the rest of the writing, so it's probably extraneous to the writing. Could be a later addition, could be an earlier mark, could be dirt. But it's far from certain that this stroke is made with the same ink as the rest of the inscription.

The c was also discussed here in the thread itself. What else can I say about it? I honestly find it difficult.

There have been several readings for this symbol in this thread. "c" is one of them, but there were more ("e", "t", or just a flourish of 3, if I remember correctly).

The same goes for the A. If you are unable to recognise that this is a glyph in the shape of an A, I am not surprised that you have given up hope of deciphering the Voynich text.

It doesn't look likely to me that this is an A. Also, I still consider the chances that the manuscript will be deciphered in the nearest future quite high, I have no idea if my effort will play any role, but there seems to be slow and steady progress with many competing approaches from many people. So my hopes are quite high.

No, no one doubts that the 3 is a brevigraph for an m, and no one doubts that a macron indicates an omitted letter. That would turn the entire history of the Latin language upside down. At most, one can doubt whether this is a 3 or a macron. But I didn't write that. Of course, one can doubt everything, even doubts.

This is correct, I'm not arguing that 3 could not signify an m, I'm arguing that this is not the only possibility. For example, at the very beginning of this thread 3 was interpreted as Z.