Theory: perhaps the letters do not have phonemic content?

[ololololo]

There are hundreds of images in the MS, a lot of them labelled.

Even taking into account the context, it defies analysis.

Invented script is a very good sign for an invented language.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. The invented alphabet is also suitable for some distant language that is difficult to translate into Latin.

Which statistical features specifically are incompatible with an invented language?

I'm not saying that they're incompatible, because they're still compatible. What I'm saying is that they haven't been explained. That's the first thing.
Secondly, with all the assumptions, I can't find an explanation for why Voynichese is so minimalistic. Was the author too lazy to come up with other words, and he started using the old ones? Does each word have a different meaning?
Thirdly, philosophical language seems to have a syntax problem. A prime example is the qokeedy Death Loop (f75r). From the point of view of linguistics, how meaningful and coherent will such a text be, even if it's written in super-duper-logical-complicated-philosophical language? 

people did not have a need to create their own language

They didn't invent a language FOR NOTHING, they didn't invent a language just to speak it. Lingua Ignota and Enochian were created for mystical purposes in order to use them in rituals, but certainly not to communicate with each other. It was only later that all kinds of languages like Esperanto began to appear, in the Middle Ages they were not particularly interested in this.

I'm not even sure if you are arguing for an invented language or against it

I think it's unlikely, but it's possible. No one knows for sure...

the OP in the thread didn't argue for a purely philosophical language, but for a nomenclator with elements of philosophical language, which is not at all anachronistic

That's true, but I didn't seem to say that such a system was "ahead of time". It is simple and rather difficult to execute, and it seems impractical to use it to write a 270-page book.

Small nomenclators were actively used in diplomatic ciphers of the time, there is nothing extraordinary in imagining an experiment where a nomenclator is used for a whole book.

And I'm ofYou are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Writing/reading in a philosophical language using a nomenclator is trivial with a set of index cards or a bidirectional dictionary.

Maybe it is. But in my opinion, you don't really understand what I want to convey. I'm not saying that this language is impossible, bad, etc. I'm saying that its creation and application is impractical. If you mention magical purposes, then you should keep in mind that very rarely have new languages been created for them. They could have limited themselves to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. 

If you still don't understand what I'm talking about, then I can suggest that you try to create your own language (manually!) and write a big book on it. The language should not be gibberish, it should be meaningful and readable. When you start doing this, you'll probably understand what I mean by complexity

---

In my thread, I explore the possibility that the glyphs of the Voynich manuscript were created using the method of *charactères*—symbols resembling keys or spectacles. This method takes a source text and determines the value of each word using gematria; it then identifies a substitute word from extensive, pre-established lists and replaces the original with these specific symbols. The resulting text retains neither the original information nor any grammatical traces, yet it preserves the rhythm inherent in this transformation process. Reversing the process is impossible. These symbols have no phonetic value. The rationale behind this method of text transformation can be found in my posts.

The second image is just betony. There is nothing unusual about decorating the first letters of a new section in a book.