Why and how the text could be Bavarian

[Mauro]

Two route diagrams: one for words beginning with “o,” one for words beginning with “qo.”

First observation: After the gallows, the two routes follow almost the same number (yellow circles)
If you compare the values, you can see how close they are; the only outlier is the “t” to “e” family.

Interesting observations and a nice diagram.

Some time ago I did something similar: I calculated the geometric distances of Voynich glyphs according to the distribution of their previous and following characters (the 'routes' in your diagram) and I made some observations you might find interesting.

"k" and "t" are indeed very similar, both in regard to the preceding and the following characters. Their distances are distance_previous = 0.12, distance_following = 0.12 (the minimum possible distance value is zero, the maximum is sqrt(2) =~ 1.414). Only a few characters couplets score better on distance_following, but they are all trivial cases, for example the distance_following between "n" and "m" is 0.03. Only one non-trivial couplet scores better on distance_previous: "cth" "cph", at 0.10 (*) [the 'p' is not a typo].


Re-doing the same, but considering also "ot" and "ok" to be single characters we get:
   
Here, 'k' and 't' mean 'k not preceded by o' and 't not preceded by o'.

Some couplets are even more similar on distance_following than 'k,t' in the original text, including 'ot, ok', slightly better at distance = 0.11 vs. 0.12. Others are more divergent, from just a little ('ot, t' and 'k, t') to rather higher ('ok, t' at 0.23).

The distances_previous are surprising because they are constantly much higher than the original 0.12 of 'k,t'. I can explain this to me (but I did not check!) only hypothesizing that 'k' and 't' are preceded by 'o' so frequently to dramatically bring down the distances, which could be taken to support the hypothesis that 'ok' and 'ot' are two 'atoms' of the script (which would mean 'qo' is not an 'atom', even if 'qok' and 'qot' could be).


Do whatever you want with the above!






(*) In the analysis I considered "cth", "ckh", "cph", "cfh", "ch" and "sh" to be single characters. Transcription Rf1a-n, full text, all uncertain spaces are spaces, all words including a '?' have been discarded.