Evidence for 2 rules linking words in Herbal A->B

[npcompl33t]

That would be a very valuable result!  Meanwhile, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is what could be a first step in that direction: a set of "projection rules" that seem to map both A and B to the same language (but with massive loss of information). 

I actually linked to your idea in my OP, I think the rules i mentioned are a decent first step at identifying a portion of the larger set of projection rules.

If this hunch is true, then the differences between Herbal A and B may be due to a "spelling reform" that the Author did between transcribing the two books; or to differences between the dialect or pronunciation of the two ur-books; or to differences in the style and format of the entries.  

I am starting to suspect something similar. Do you have a theory on the order the sections would have been written in? 

This is going into pure speculation, I don't have proof of this and might revise this later on learning more, but I think specifically the chy-> edy/chdy rule represents something like this.

If there is say an 'archaic' and 'modern' voynich, the transition from using chy to edy / chdy would make sense. 

Herbal B scribes seem to mostly prefer -edy, however, there seem to be some 'archaic' rules that still necessitate the 'ch' in certain situations, particularly with the P / F gallows. Late Herbal A / Pharma would seem to have been written after Early Herbal A, because the -chy usage there is roughly equivalent to Herbal B.

The 'd insertion' before y could reflect grammar or tense, but it would make sense if that was a later convention that didn't exist when early herbal A was written, as it is a broad change, with B scribes preferring -chdy over -chy. 

Again, pure speculation, but it makes sense with what i've seen so far.