Atoms and elements of the Voynichese alphabet

[Torsten]

Sorry, I didn't quite understand.  But, indeed, it first occurred to me that the ending ir could be similar to iin when I was developing my Voynichese word model and saw that the frequencies of ir,iir,iiir were roughly proportional to those of iin, iiin, iiiin.  Then I noticed the similarity between the shapes of r and a moderately sloppy in.

Since then I have got a few more bit of evidence that (1) the ending ir is indeed equivalent to iin, and (2) that equivalence is the result of scribal error rather than an intentional feature of the script.  Enough evidence that I now generally assume that equivalence in my analyses.  

But, indeed, I have no proof of either statement.  On the other hand, I know of no evidence or argument that contradicts them...

I see three additional problems with your error-hypothesis.

First, identifying errors in an undeciphered writing system assumes we know what the correct form should be. But we can't read the text. Declaring "ir" an error for "iin" requires knowing that "iin" is correct — which requires understanding the writing system, which we don't have. The word grammar you use to identify "ir" as anomalous was derived from the same text you are now "correcting." That is circular: build a grammar from the text, notice some forms don't fit cleanly, declare those forms errors, simplify the grammar, and present the simplified grammar as evidence that the errors were real.

Second, every collapse replaces a rare form with a common one — removing elements with high entropy and replacing them with elements with low entropy. "ir" (607 instances) merged into "iin" (4,109 instances). "m" merged into "iin." Each collapse reduces the number of distinct word types and increases the frequency concentration. If the text is already at the lower boundary of what looks like language — Gheuens showed the functional alphabet reduces to about 13 characters — making it more repetitive by collapsing characters pushes it further from language, not closer.

Third, similar glyphs are a key feature of the VMS writing system, not evidence of errors. Currier wrote about this in 1976 in "The Nature of the Symbols" — the glyphs are built from shared base strokes, and "you can make up almost any of the other letters out of these two symbols"(see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). The similarity between "ir" and "iin," between "ch" and "sh," between "k" and "t" is the design of the system. Your own word grammar documents the same structure — similar glyphs occupying the same slots. Removing the similar forms doesn't correct errors — it dismantles the system that produces the text.