(30-09-2025, 10:28 PM)LisaFaginDavis wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.No, that is definitely not what I am arguing. It's just that [n] turns out to be a useful diagnostic for quickly determining which scribe one is looking at. This is true for just about any kind of script...there are always one or two graphemes that are particularly useful for distinguishing between scribes. It just so happens that, for Voynichese, [n] and [k] (and [f] to a lesser extent) are useful diagnostic glyphs, along with the general aspect of Scribes 1 and 2 in particular. Many of the glyphs are paleographically useless, such as [a], , and [o], so it is not worth the time to describe them. 

In 12th-century Germany, for example, you want to look at [&], [g], and the question mark. In 14th-century England, [a] is particularly useful. In 15th-c. Italy, the Tironian [et] abbreviation is a good diagnostic, among other letters. But of course you want to consider more graphemes in your research. It just isn't worth the ink, paper, and time to describe them if they do not move the argument forward. They only add static and noise. A concise and effective academic argument focuses on salient details, which is what I have done.