Thanks Rene and David.
So to continue the example, for the second step of the procedure, we add numbers as follows:
2a) 6 + 8 + 5 + 5 + 6 + 5 = 35
2b) 3 + 5 = 8.
So we get number 8 in the second step.
What is the third step, then? How does 8 expand into "ERFAGAF"? I understand that "ERFAGAF" can be "translated" into "8" using the numerology chart for the Latin alphabet. I also understand that "ERFAGAF" is a Welsh word, and that it is postulated (without any proof) that the plain text is Welsh.
But I have two questions:
1) How the word "ERFAGAF" is picked out of the multitude of Welsh words which count into 8?
2) Given that oteeol is six characters long, and ERFAGAF is seven characters long, it is apparent that the number of characters does not need to match between Voynichese and Welsh in the "numerology" method. This noted, why does the method constrain itself to picking only a single Welsh word for each Voynichese word? Why can't a phrase (consisting of two, three or more Welsh words) be picked? This, again, is postulated without any proof.
So to continue the example, for the second step of the procedure, we add numbers as follows:
2a) 6 + 8 + 5 + 5 + 6 + 5 = 35
2b) 3 + 5 = 8.
So we get number 8 in the second step.
What is the third step, then? How does 8 expand into "ERFAGAF"? I understand that "ERFAGAF" can be "translated" into "8" using the numerology chart for the Latin alphabet. I also understand that "ERFAGAF" is a Welsh word, and that it is postulated (without any proof) that the plain text is Welsh.
But I have two questions:
1) How the word "ERFAGAF" is picked out of the multitude of Welsh words which count into 8?
2) Given that oteeol is six characters long, and ERFAGAF is seven characters long, it is apparent that the number of characters does not need to match between Voynichese and Welsh in the "numerology" method. This noted, why does the method constrain itself to picking only a single Welsh word for each Voynichese word? Why can't a phrase (consisting of two, three or more Welsh words) be picked? This, again, is postulated without any proof.

