This damn EVA z

[ololololo]

The symbol z looks like a small version of k and appears very rarely in the manuscript. I counted it 3 times; only 2 are present in the transcription by Tahakasi.
It appears once in Botany (f17r), f58r–f58v, and on the diagram f67v1, and it is repeated twice in the word.
   
And this is definitely not k, since the scribe of Astrology has no problem writing this gallows. This is also not a distorted ch à la Ih, because there is a loop there.
However, this sign does not appear on f57v, where x is featured.
Of course, ch doesn’t appear there either, but still…

I suggest that this letter is similar to i/n or r, because in all cases (except for f17r) it comes after a.

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

[Ruby Novacna]

I counted it 3 times; only 2 are present in the transcription by Tahakasi.

Indeed, the word you are presenting is transliterated as damamm in ZL and in Takahashi.

[ololololo]

I counted it 3 times; only 2 are present in the transcription by Tahakasi.

Indeed, the word you are presenting is transliterated as damamm in ZL and in Takahashi.

Exactly, but the Tachikawa alphabet includes z. They’re easy to tell apart — the line on m goes down.

[Koen G]

One of the greatest mysteries of the VM, in my opinion, is that we don't have more stuff like this. Why is it all so well behaved overall?

[ololololo]

One of the greatest mysteries of the VM, in my opinion, is that we don't have more stuff like this. Why is it all so well behaved overall?

Well, actually, it might be that this is some rare case of writing a certain symbol. Maybe it’s roughly the same as i/n, just with a loop.

[oshfdk]

What do you think about this letter?

Looks like a version of m to me. Just with a very short tail.

What can it tell us about the manuscript’s cipher?

Well, if it is a Latin month name, then the cipher can encode ordinary letter sequences with unusual sequences of Voynichese.

[Jorge_Stolfi]

The symbol z looks like a small version of k and appears very rarely in the manuscript. I counted it 3 times; only 2 are present in the transcription by Tahakasi.  It appears once in Botany (f17r), f58r–f58v, and on the diagram f67v1, and it is repeated twice in the word.

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. 

Imagine that you are transcribing a book in Latin script but an unknown language and you notice that the letter "K" appears only three times in the whole book, while "H" occurs dozens of times per page.  You decide to transcribe those three "K" as "H".  Will that make any significant difference when you try to identify the language? 

Besides, a case can be made that those "mini-k"s are indeed just k gallows.  While there may be few instances that are that small, the vertical size of the gallows seems to vary by a factor of 2 or more.  On that same text ring there are some ks whose "head" fits entirely inside the framing circle, and some ks whose "head" lies well beyond it.  Are those two distinct "letters", too?

All the best, --stolfi

[ololololo]

Looks like a version of m to me. Just with a very short tail.

By the way, yes. Perhaps the scribe decided that making a lower stroke for all the m’s would look ugly.
But who knows...

[ololololo]

Are those two distinct "letters", too?

No, because they correspond to what k looks like — it’s a capital letter. By the same logic, the letters h and b are the same; it’s just that h is an incorrect spelling of b.

Besides, a case can be made that those "mini-k"s are indeed just k gallows.

In the other two cases, this letter is in a position that is uncharacteristic for k — zepchy and tazain.
The position is uncharacteristic because a gallows is already standing nearby, and two gallows in one word are very rare.

Well, if it is a Latin month name, then the cipher can encode ordinary letter sequences with unusual sequences of Voynichese.

Generally, such a rare symbol, in my opinion, is not typical for Voynichese. This may suggest an homophonic substitution, where z is a variant for another letter.

[Stefan Wirtz_2]

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.