My Solution – Abbreviated Middle High German

[ololololo]

It's not a new thing that medieval authors used abbreviations. They could shorten every word if it wasn't small enough.
Of course, internally, your theory is consistent, but Voynich's manuscript doesn't really seem like someone's "prank" or "creative idea of a shortened language." And yet... why this particular way? Why not, for example, shorten all words to a single letter? Why create new alphabet?

I don't think the VM is talking about a "prank" at this point. Presumably, a translation problem has arisen here.


I am currently resolving the string in question as sch.e.z. First of all, I used the Middle High German word schërz (stm.) and translated with the New High German "joke". In retrospect, however, I think this choice of words is misleading. What would then be meant would not be that the manuscript itself is a joke or a forgery, but rather that it should seem like an inconsequential occupation to the author's environment – like an ordinary herbal or astronomy book that does not give rise to any particular interest.

In the meantime, I think other assignments are even more likely. If, for example, you look at schërz (swm.) or schërzel (stn.), there is the meaning of a "cut piece" or a small section of wood, paper or bread. These readings might fit the context better.

As JoJo_Jost have already correctly noted, the choice of the long word currently still depends on my personal assessment. That's exactly why I'm currently working on further narrowing down the number of possible assignments. My goal is to base the interpretation more strongly on recurring word uses and contextual references, thereby reducing the number of plausible alternatives.

To the question of why it was not shortened to one letter:

A reduction to just a single letter per word would ultimately make the text almost unreadable even for the author himself. Therefore, I assume that a compromise had to be found between brevity and readability.

The question also arises as to why a separate sign system was also used. My guess is that the people of the 15th century were much more familiar with abbreviations and abbreviations than we are today. An experienced reader would probably have recognized many word abbreviations relatively quickly. The additional layer of character substitution would therefore provide further protection and make it more difficult to read immediately.

My previous experience with the signs indicates that they are no longer a significant obstacle after a certain training period. On the contrary: Some classifications seem surprisingly memorable to me.

For example, I map the character for r to z. This seems unusual at first, but it is easy to remember, as the shape is reminiscent of the spelling of the number two in the 15th century.

Other signs also show possible mnemonic aids. For example, the sign ce for m has two arcs, just like the Latin m. These were merely turned to the side and delimited by an additional line of two l standing next to each other.

The character for Sh looks like an upside-down w, which in turn was indicated by the reversible arc above it.

The character s for v can then be understood as half a w, so to speak.

Of course, I cannot prove whether these observations actually explain the original origin of the signs. However, I find it remarkable that such mnemonics arise again and again when learning the system.

It seems (and in general, it is) that for a 15th-century reader, a book with abbreviations would be much more understandable than it is for us now. But you know, it doesn't change anything. What you call abbreviations in relation to the manuscript still stand out from the literature of that time, and they don't really resemble Latin in appearance. 
The scribe should understand that even when abbreviating, the text should still be clear. However, if the manuscript is indeed an abbreviation, it is probably the most terrible method of word abbreviation.
I would advise you to explain the quirky nature of the alphabet and why the author turned, let's say, a regular b into a Voynich's k, which are not very similar (maybe it's a disguise?).
At the moment, the problem with your system is that you can't directly say that this is how the manuscript was written (the fact that it's possible isn't really enough).
And the fact that the abbreviations are easy to remember means that you have... a very good memory .
P.S. Yes, I'm writing with the help of a translator, so there may be some issues. In this case, I meant by "prank" the overall quirky nature of the abbreviation system you described. Well, just couldn't find another word.