Many-to-one

[vosreth]

Can you decode this? It's a good test:

Eva:
sakda qoairy tarchain ar samy
dchel otdarir yady okody dchrl

Is that real text or AI generated? Definitely some real oddities there like ending in a (should be only 0.7% of words).
I don't have a clean explanation on how to read that double nominative in otdarir or double head in okody, or yady being so short with double closure.

The system can't encode that sentence and the reason it can't is the point. It has no open-class vocabulary, no word for "book", "plants" or "stars". It has no conjunction ("and"). You'd need illustrations, section placement, and page position to provide the semantic content. It's only telling how things relate to each other.

Something close to "this book is about plants and stars" could be qokedy daiin daiin, but you'd only know what the referents are from the context.

Let's take any text only page, say, f76r, that has no images at all. What would the context be?

That's a good question and I've been wondering the same. A recipe book doesn't need a drawing of each herb if the structure tells you where you are, entry 96 is the context (it wouldn't take much effort to draw the number there though). The first page is an even better example, because there's no context to refer to. Some possibilities that came to mind: 1) the first page is an explanation of how the "grammar" works or 2) you could also invent a system like this not for writing but for remembering. 

This sounds like you had a discussion with an LLM that went directly into its usual solution for Voynichese, processes and operations: "each glyph encodes not a sound but an operator", with the usual deluge of (too) specific but unsubstantiated claims.

If you think these assignments are wrong, I'm genuinely interested in how they're wrong.

These claims are "not even wrong". Too vague to be tested. Not even good science fiction, unless they refer to an alien or AI language that includes a distinct layer stuck between grammar and semantics.

Fair, the semantic labels are vague and I've said as much, they're almost certainly wrong. The numbers either hold or they don't, those you can test and then suggest better labels. I'm not proposing each glyph means X, but that here's a possible label for that glyph.