The evolution of P/F vs T/K raises important questions

[Jorge_Stolfi]

For years I have been pondering the question of why someone who was educated in Latin would want to create a work that was not in Latin.  There are several possible answers.  I think the most common ones that have been offered are:
- it's gibberish (maybe he started hearing voices in his head)
- he wanted to hide the knowledge he was sharing about the topic (very odd considering all the illustrations)
- he wanted to share the information in a language other than Latin (possibly for people who did not know Latin)

I have another possible answer, or even two.  But they seem to be rather unpopular...

Why would he keep some of the Latin characters but not all of them?  What is special about the characters he felt the need to replace?

My answer to this question is that the Voynichese alphabet was not, in fact, inspired on the Latin one.  The non-gallows glyphs are basically all possible combinations of two simple pen strokes:  a left side that may be i or e, and a right side that may be an h (creating Ih or Ch), an r-plume (r or s), an n-plume (n or b), a y-tail (l or y), a d-loop (j or d), an m-loop (g or m), an i (ii or a) or a reverse-e (?1 or o).

The combination "?1" (like a small back-slanted "D") does not seem to occur.  All the others occur in the VMS, although some are rare and some may be mis-shaped versions of other glyphs.   The gallows are similarly formed from two strokes: one straight "left leg" and one right half that may be either one or two loops combined with either a straight "right leg" or a horizontal "right arm".  

Only Sh requires three strokes, and the platform gallows CTh etc. require four.

Looking at it this way, the similarities with Latin a, o, and the abbreviation -us are mere coincidences.

My unpopular answers to "why not use the Latin alphabet" would explain also why the alphabet has this systematic structure.  

Which brings up my third possible answer to "why not use the Latin alphabet", maybe almost as unpopular as the other two:
- the Author's native language was not written with the Latin alphabet.  
Its script could have been Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, Armenian, Georgian, Glagolitic, Ethiopian, Indian, Tibetan, ...  In which case, when he decided to write a book in code, or full of gibberish, or in an exotic language -- why would he use the Latin alphabet?

All the best, --stolfi