Voynichese is a numeric cipher?

[ololololo]

I’m replying in your thread in accordance with the forum rules so as not to confuse the thread topics; I hope that’s okay.

No problems

arbitrary word separation and merging (without any rules?))

There is no problem with combining conditional, for example, sheor, because you can immediately see that it is XX XIX. If we go by the example, there are no rules, and you can combine the words.

two cipher tables—one with letters and the other with abbreviations. (which, however, makes decryption nearly impossible).

In fact, I'm not so sure that abbreviations can be used here. I don't see a difference in encrypting -us as two characters instead of one, as it will still be in its correct position (according to logic. If it were to move to a different location, it would be more difficult to decipher).

Symbol values that are “invented” to force individual glyphs into the system    — for example, EVA x = 150 is justified by the astrological quincunx angle. But what about all the other numbers???

About x, it was just a guess. It may have some other meaning (but it is most likely related to astronomy or something similar, as it appears in the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. chart with other unidentified symbols).

9 rules versus 4 to 6. So Ockham’s razor works against you, not for you.

Are these the exact rules? If I wanted to combine a word to make it more "beautiful," that's not a rule; it's just my whim. Just because I can do something doesn't mean I should do it. "Rules" refers to the latter.

And even with these 6-9 rules—some of which allow for a high degree of flexibility—your model still lacks a mechanism for:

I know. I'm not particularly good at statistics, and I can't create something that will reproduce the Voynichese text as statistically similar as possible. But at the same time, I didn't pursue this goal. In that example, I showed that it's quite easy to transform a Latin text into a Voynich-like one.

Repeated sequences of four “chol” or five “okedy.” According to your scheme, the plaintext would have to contain the same content four to five times in a row—which is syntactically implausible in a herbal.

What I described in my post and Voynichese are different things! When I said that it was easy to turn Latin text into something similar to VMS, I didn't say that I had solved the encryption scheme and knew the contents of the manuscript. I didn't say that I had reconstructed the encryption algorithm of the manuscript. The purpose of this example is to show that Roman numerals produce a similar result. Similar, but not exactly the same!
Moreover, at the moment, I can't describe exactly how Voynichese might work. I can only provide a rough description of what it might contain. It could be features of the cipher alphabet that minimize the number of repetitions or something similar.

You have no idea why these LAAFU effects should occur; it makes no sense in your cipher.

I didn't think about LAAFU/BAAFU when I was doing this. It wasn't part of my plan

The system does not explain the sequence of similar words (words that differ by only one letter), unless it involves consistently inserting zeros in the same sequence—which would result in the system having completely nonsensical degrees of freedom. After all, the VMS could then consist of just three sentences, with the rest being all zeros. Such an assignment is meaningless

In my example, the similar words are just numbers that are aligned in order. It is only natural that if we have XVII XVI, we will have two words that start with the same letter (if XV is considered to be one letter). 
I would also like to point out that my example is not to be confused with VMS. You do not claim that VMS is encrypted using the Naibbe cipher, do you?
Similarly, I can turn a Latin text into a Voynich-like text, but I can't translate or accurately reproduce the manuscript text. 

it makes too many assumptions and still can't explain all these statistical peculiarities clearly enough without making further additional assumptions.

There's still a lot of work to be done on the manuscript's cipher... So far, that's all I have to say. 
I think that the current drawback of my theory is that I don't have a methodology. I can only speculate about how the VMS text is formed, but I won't be able to provide any details. It might be helpful to create similar ciphers and compare them with the text, potentially leading to the development of even more similar models based on similarities and differences. This could potentially lead us to the actual cipher...


Thanks a lot for the reply!

P.S. I think the main problem is that a very inexperienced person took over the theory of the number cipher... That's first. 
The second thing I want to point out is that Roman numerals are not You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. @Bluetoes101 did a very good job...
I think the fact that the numbers somehow parody Voynichese very well (not as well as I would like, but nevertheless) deserves special attention.
I also ask you to separate the degrees of freedom from the assumptions. The "freedom" of action will not affect the cipher in any way. I can change the order of the letters or combine the words, but the text itself will not change. An assumption would be if my text was not very similar, and I decided: "Let's randomly add daiin and other words to make it look similar." Possible examples of nulls and "numeric" repetitions can be found on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and on f15v. For some reason, my example of encryption reminded me of the text on the first pages of botany, specifically f4r. The differences are in the "frequent" elements (VMS qo is more common). Maybe it's just my imagination.