Hi Paul,
I only had a short look at part 3, so I might have missed something important (but I doubt this is the case).
You might want to check the recent paper by Lisa Fagin Davis "What will it take to solve the Voynich manuscript?" (see You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.).
These are the three criteria for evaluating solutions she discusses:
1) An acceptable proposal must be consistent with the realities of the object itself.
For instance, one could wonder how frequently Latin manuscripts arbitrarily mess-up/drop all word endings. The VMS is a XV Century ms. If it is a XV Century Latin manuscript, it must be compared with other XV Century Latin manuscripts. In all the other cases I am aware of (cipher or clear-text) suffixes are not written arbitrarily: what you propose does not seem to be consistent with the realities of a XV Century Latin manuscript.
2) An acceptable solution must be the result of a sound and explicable methodology that is logical and repeatable.
I think you have great margins for improvement here.
Your method is highly ambiguous, so much so that you cannot translate anything and are left with listing multiple Latin words for each Voynichese word. For instance, for each of the first four words in You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. you list 2 possibilities, meaning that you are undecided between 2*2*2*2=16 different readings.
But of course the possibilities are many more. You write that
ar can be
area (area) or
arvum (field), but it could also be
ara (altar),
aro (a plant of the genus "arum"),
arem (I plow)... In most cases, you cannot even tell if a word is a noun or a verb or some other part of speech. With tens of options for just four words, the translation process cannot be repeated.
In my opinion, an even bigger problem is how you split the text into sentences. Latin manuscripts often had very little or no punctuation because you could understand the structure of the text on the basis of grammar. You decide to throw away grammar and suffixes and by doing so you give up any hope of understanding where a sentence ends. Your sentence-splitting appears to be totally arbitrary and unrepeatable. Why should others think that the first sentence is 4 words long and the second 6 words long?
Finally, suffixes are not absent in the readings you propose, you just treat them as irrelevant. Why would someone write "cicutas" (accusative plural) if he meant "cicuta" (nominative singular) or "cicutae" (nominative plural)? This does not seem logical to me.
3) An acceptable proposal must result in a reading that makes sense semantically, chronologically, and logically.
You stop at word lists, without even trying to create a semantically coherent text, so your attempt cannot satisfy this requirement. Others used similar methods to produce something still arbitrary but more or less meaningful (e.g. You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.), nothing satisfactory anyway. Your choice not to push things that far seems quite understandable to me.