Unfortunately, I don't have time to blog about this, which is too bad because I have so many examples, but one thing we have to keep in mind about the VMS main text is that constructed alphabets (and also a high proportion of cipher texts) are almost all different from evolved alphabets in certain specific ways.
What many constructed alphabets and ciphertexts have in common is
If you look through the various scripts on Omniglot, you will find that many of the ones that "feel" more like VMS glyphs were alphabets invented by missionaries in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. This gives an idea of what I mean by "constructed" texts. When a script is newly invented, the designers seem to be thinking more about shape than ease of quick writing.
So, we cannot be certain that the VMS glyphs are similar to the scribe's native script because it MIGHT be a constructed alphabet or MIGHT be a cipher text and thus may have certain characteristics in common with other invented texts (e.g., Georgian, which was a constructed alphabet, or various ciphertexts). Resemblance to natural scripts (e.g., Italic/Humanist, which is more spaced and rounder that Gothic Cursiva) might be coincidental (and it might not... but we don't know for sure).
But, as frustratingly obtuse as the VMS can be, I think there are some clues in the main text. For example, the way the swept-back tails are drawn is very typical for 15th century script and might illustrate habits of the hand. Whether the leaning-back letters are normal for the scribe who designed the VMS glyphs is very difficult to determine (I have found a small number of hands like that), so the "a" might be an invented shape rather than the scribe's usual shape, although the "o" might be the scribe's natural "o" since it doesn't lean. There might even be a systematic reason for the backleaning letters. For example, maybe leaning glyphs are numerals, or cipher-letters, or something that was originally intended to stand out from regular letters (as on folio 116v) so they could easily be distinguished at a glance.
What many constructed alphabets and ciphertexts have in common is
- many disconnected letters,
- letters that tend to be more upright than slanted, and
- often more rounded forms.
If you look through the various scripts on Omniglot, you will find that many of the ones that "feel" more like VMS glyphs were alphabets invented by missionaries in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. This gives an idea of what I mean by "constructed" texts. When a script is newly invented, the designers seem to be thinking more about shape than ease of quick writing.
So, we cannot be certain that the VMS glyphs are similar to the scribe's native script because it MIGHT be a constructed alphabet or MIGHT be a cipher text and thus may have certain characteristics in common with other invented texts (e.g., Georgian, which was a constructed alphabet, or various ciphertexts). Resemblance to natural scripts (e.g., Italic/Humanist, which is more spaced and rounder that Gothic Cursiva) might be coincidental (and it might not... but we don't know for sure).
But, as frustratingly obtuse as the VMS can be, I think there are some clues in the main text. For example, the way the swept-back tails are drawn is very typical for 15th century script and might illustrate habits of the hand. Whether the leaning-back letters are normal for the scribe who designed the VMS glyphs is very difficult to determine (I have found a small number of hands like that), so the "a" might be an invented shape rather than the scribe's usual shape, although the "o" might be the scribe's natural "o" since it doesn't lean. There might even be a systematic reason for the backleaning letters. For example, maybe leaning glyphs are numerals, or cipher-letters, or something that was originally intended to stand out from regular letters (as on folio 116v) so they could easily be distinguished at a glance.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)
