Cipher or unknown language - historical perspective

[rikforto]

And there is literally nowhere the definite evidence that all or most letters needed 2 strokes.
In that example picture, there are many characters shown where no second "landing" after an offset is visible.

I'm not sure if you need other people's opinions or not, but in case you do, here's mine: the shapes of most Voynichese letters could be produced with one stroke using some special techniques and writing implements. But the strokes would have looked quite differently if this was the case. To me it's absolutely certain that almost all glyphs in the manuscript were actually written using more than one stroke, with the exception of e and i.

I can't claim true expertise and my experience is mainly in East Asian calligraphy, but I'll throw my hat in here too: multiple strokes, usually two, and fairly consistent as handwriting goes. And even if you reject my judgement (fair!) I'll affirm that a genuine expert should be able to make these determinations in principle because writing does leave evidence of the process on the page, to the point that scribes everywhere usually crafted systems that were based on picking them out. Every reason to think this script was in that tradition, and a fair few people have weighed in about what's on the pages of the Voynich

An interesting outlier is EVA-d, which is sometimes 1 or even 3, but it's still mostly 2. I've been looking at it differently since Stolfi started talking more about a possible retracer because I think the variations might be down to that, with the original being 2 strokes. I have plans to look closer at that later this week or next.