The oddities of the bigram "ed" pt. 3 : It's not just "ed"

[oshfdk]

So I don't know if it's an elephant or a porcupine.  But, if I look at those quills, I may not be able to identify it as a porcupine, but I'll be pretty certain it's not an elephant.  Only by eliminating the impossible can you then see what's possible.  Now if I'm looking at the longest quills, then I know it's a porcupine and I'm trying to identify the species.  So far, nobody can even agree on if it's any animal we know.

I'm not sure any single thing has been ever decisively eliminated about the manuscript, except that its creation started past 1360s (or what was the earliest C14 match, I don't remember), and even then some people argue that the MS is a copy of a work created earlier.

For example, simple 1:1 substitution when interpreting glyphs according to popular transliterations (EVA, etc) for a common European language (Latin, French, German) has been eliminated. However, simple substitution with an exotic language or simple substitution but with different glyph assignments (edit: that is, interpreting variations of some EVA characters are different glyphs) or multi character substitution have not been eliminated, as far as I know.