One funny word on f114r.30

[Mauro]

If my calculations are correct, that score means the text "could" be compared to a highly agglutinative or even polysynthetic language, where words are built by concatenating numerous small suffixes to one another.

Actually, prefixes, infixes and suffixes, everything is possible. But one also needs roots! and this is the problem with Voynichese: after removing prefixes and suffixes most of the times nothing remains.

This result made me reflect on your estimate of a 10% error rate. What if lkeede is not a spelling mistake for lkeedy at all? If the language "glues" concepts together, perhaps your core character e and your core character y aren't just simple orthographic variants, but actual grammatical suffixes? For instance, hypothetically speaking, one could indicate the plural, and the other a verb tense.
If we look at the final characters as specific morphological tags rather than transcription errors, maybe the scribe wasn't making mistakes at all.

This has been proposed many times, up to Voynichese being a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. The problem is fleshing this idea out.

Furthermore, the hypothesis of an "agglutinative language" would perfectly explain the well-known anomaly of "Word Doubling".

Well, no. A language being agglutinative is one thing, while having productive word reduplication is a different thing. Neither implies the other one.