The Voynich Manuscript is NOT a cipher

[matildarose]

The extremely high IC (0.12) indicates the symbols represent  SYLLABLES or common letter combinations, not individual letters.

So you say that one symbol = one syllable. How do you imagine a language which has only about 20-30 syllables?

In the meantime, go ahead and ask ChatGPT to build you a 12,000-entry dictionary with 99.67% corpus coverage.

What are your entries? Words? That makes some problem because Voynich manuscript has only about 8000 unique words.

Fair challenges on both counts. Let me clarify:

On the syllable question:

You're right that 20-30 base symbols can't represent a full syllabary in the traditional sense.
The high IC indicates the symbols represent units larger than single letters but not necessarily one-to-one syllables.

What I've found is a hybrid system:

- Some symbols function as consonant clusters or common bigrams
- Some function as abbreviated word-stems
- Prefixes and suffixes modify base meanings systematically
- Grammatical markers distinguish case and function

So it's not "20 syllables = 20 possible sounds." 
It's closer to a logographic-phonetic hybrid... like how medieval Latin abbreviations compress information. 
The symbol inventory is small, but combinatorial morphology expands it dramatically.

On the 12,000 entries vs 8,000 unique words:

You caught a real distinction I should clarify. The dictionary includes:

- Base lexemes (root forms)
- Morphological variants (same root + different affixes)
- Compound decompositions (multi-root words analyzed)
- Contextual meanings (same form, section-dependent)

Fair point on the token count.
The 12,000+ entries reflect morphological decomposition - roots, variants, compounds, and contextual meanings. 
Not a claim that 12,000 unique words exist in the manuscript.

Thank you for pressing on this, precision matters.