This damn EVA z

[ololololo]

The symbol z looks like a small version of k and appears very rarely in the manuscript. 

And this is definitely not k, since the scribe of Astrology has no problem writing this gallows.

Why not?
Space is limited in this special field; not really a good chance to write the "full scale" gallows.
We see at some other occasions how exceedingly big these gallows were written when the sribes had enough space (like in a first line of a page, of a paragraph, or else).

The question here is: did the inventors of VMS alphabet / cipher set chose to produce different characters which are just a few millimeters different by height? Or did they prefer clearly different characters?

The second question is: does the tail at the end transport an additional meaning with the last character, apart from being just end-of-word?
In the last case, all three z would be identical, and maybe identical with k also.

In the latter case, it’s unlikely, because if it’s dakakm, then km would be an invalid combination.

[Stefan Wirtz_2]

[..]
Space is limited in this special field; not really a good chance to write the "full scale" gallows.
[..]
In the last case, all three z would be identical, and maybe identical with k also.

In the latter case, it’s unlikely, because if it’s dakakm, then km would be an invalid combination.

I can redraw my first line here: scribe(s) had no problems to exceed field lines of that roundel at all, you may find several examples of (too) big gallows within the same page;
so the smaller z looks like some own, stand-alone character which I can add to my understanding of VMS "atoms and elements".

But I don't get the idea of "invalid combination" here: why should something be invalid..?

[nablator]

There are at least 10.

9 in ZL:
f17r.7: zepchy
f58r.24: tazain
f68r2.6: okozy
f69v.1: otaza
f70v1.1: zar
f70v1.4: otakaizan
f85r2.14: chz[s:r] --> could be chees (I like cheese).
fRos.79: olz --> looks more like ddl to me
f102r2.2: azg

Missing:
f67v1.1: dazazm
f70r2.2: ykezy
f89v2.13: dyzar,an

Maybe a few others (or just smaller k): f33v.8, f85r1.5, f105r.1, f106v.15, f111v.35

[ololololo]

But I don't get the idea of "invalid combination" here: why should something be invalid..?

Essentially, “incorrect” means “non‑standard.” For the most part, m is located at the end of words and is not a highly interactive letter, appearing only after a o and i

[oshfdk]

Essentially, “incorrect” means “non‑standard.” For the most part, m is located at the end of words and is not a highly interactive letter, appearing only after a o and i

Any way to parse dazazm will have some rare or unattested combinations. No matter which other letter you substitute for z. This is just a strange word, it will have a strange transcription. Voynichese is full of these oddities.

[nablator]

There might be some reason for the many ambiguous glyphs (not only z). Intermediate forms could make sense if several possibilities exist and there is not only one choice... no way to know for sure.

[Grove]

A glyph that is that rare can be assumed to be an "error" or simply a variant of some similar glyph.  It will not be this simplification that will prevent us from cracking the manuscript. 

It is doubtful that assuming the glyph anomalies are some sort of simple variation of similar glyphs will prevent us from seeing the underlying text (assuming there is something), but there are hundreds of rare glyphs that often look like they are created from parts of other glyphs not normally joined together. The fact that so many exist seems like it serves a purpose to me, rather than an error. I get that you’re saying they can be treated as an error because they don’t impact most of the content on a page but I think they could help as a focal point for some investigation to try and break what makes them necessary to show up where they do.

Not that anyone has ever succeeded at this approach, but anomalies really can be helpful.

[DG97EEB]

A glyph that is that rare can be assumed to be an "error" or simply a variant of some similar glyph.  It will not be this simplification that will prevent us from cracking the manuscript. 

It is doubtful that assuming the glyph anomalies are some sort of simple variation of similar glyphs will prevent us from seeing the underlying text (assuming there is something), but there are hundreds of rare glyphs that often look like they are created from parts of other glyphs not normally joined together. The fact that so many exist seems like it serves a purpose to me, rather than an error. I get that you’re saying they can be treated as an error because they don’t impact most of the content on a page but I think they could help as a focal point for some investigation to try and break what makes them necessary to show up where they do.

Not that anyone has ever succeeded at this approach, but anomalies really can be helpful.

Indeed, see my post on the Saltzman paper..

[Bluetoes101]

What do you think about this letter? What can it tell us about the manuscript’s cipher?

I'd be interested to see if this glyph is associated to a (LFD)scribe the majority of the time. I've never looked myself. It's hard to say if it acts differently from one thing or another as there are so few, but if "multiple scribes" repeat the same thing it would add validity to it being a "new thing" rather than a "rushed thing" (or whatever)

[ololololo]

What do you think about this letter? What can it tell us about the manuscript’s cipher?

I'd be interested to see if this glyph is associated to a (LFD)scribe the majority of the time. I've never looked myself. It's hard to say if it acts differently from one thing or another as there are so few, but if "multiple scribes" repeat the same thing it would add validity to it being a "new thing" rather than a "rushed thing" (or whatever)

Most of the examples correspond to LFD 4. It also appears in LFD 1.
This is similar to the EVA x phenomenon that appears in LFD 2-3/