I am not sure what point you are making or question you are asking. Are two exceptions out of 505 too many exceptions? If my ideas are in the right ballpark, would 4 repetitions of an ingredient's measurement and use in four different recipes on a page be too many for some reason?
If I added one more code to Group V (EVA = e), it would take care of the two exceptions. I just have not decided if that is correct or if there are two exceptions for some reason that I do not understand, an idea I find possible.
Don't you find the fact that the other 503 do fit to be more interesting?
I invite you to look at Table X at my fumblydiddles.com site to see an old, outdated version of what those 505 words might mean if the codes are decoded as shown at my site at page 24 of:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
The first part (the first 23 pages) isn't much to look at, but the second part, where the words are more or less alphabetized and arranged seems to show an astounding possible group of readings for the words. Please understand that some of the attributions for some of the codes have changed since the time it was written. The herb abbreviations/attributions/codes of Group I/Table I are the ones usually changed (which leaves the overall structure of the codes in the words listed in Table X intact).
How can I do this with Voynich Lite and Table X for all these VMS words if not close to being correct? I am not doing anything untoward or underhanded to the words to make this happen. The pattern is there in the VMS words. All I'm doing with Table X is giving the pattern some coloration and organization so you can see it. The colors may be wrong, but the pattern is there.
For the 505 most common words, it takes 103 group I codes and 34 other codes (if I remember right) to successfully deconstruct 503 of them. 99% plus.
Voynich Lite uses 103 Group I codes and 20 others to successful deconstruct 465 of the Voynich most common words. Still about 92%.
What other system of understanding about how the words are put together gives these kind of stats for the easily understood version, much less the fully expanded version of the proof?
But, damn, the results are really, really strange.
I'm interested in reading the proposed meanings of the codes put forward by others. Maybe someone else will come forward with more acceptable meanings for the codes and thus the words.
Thank you.
Don of Tallahassee