A conceptual note on character resemblance and the limits of glyph-based decoding

[Du Uyển Linh]

Dear Voynich researchers,
I am writing to share a small conceptual perspective regarding the Voynich Manuscript. I am not proposing a solution or a definitive interpretation, but rather a cautionary observation that may be worth considering alongside existing approaches.
One recurring difficulty in Voynich studies appears to be the assumption that the script can be decoded primarily through character-by-character analysis. This approach often relies on visual similarity between Voynich glyphs and familiar writing systems, especially Latin letters. For example, certain glyphs resemble shapes such as the Latin “o”. However, visual resemblance alone does not guarantee functional or semantic equivalence.
If the script was intentionally designed, even partially, to imitate familiar letter forms without preserving their linguistic function, then attempts to map glyphs directly onto known alphabets may be fundamentally unreliable. In such a case, what appears to be “recognizable” could instead function as deliberate visual noise or misdirection.
From this perspective, I believe there is a possibility that the written characters are not the primary carriers of meaning, or at least not in the way conventional writing systems operate. The illustrations, layouts, and structural groupings may provide more stable semantic anchors than individual glyphs. In other words, the manuscript may communicate meaning through a visual–conceptual system in which text-like forms serve a secondary, supportive, or even obfuscating role.
This idea does not deny the value of cryptographic or linguistic analysis, but suggests that exclusive reliance on glyph-based decoding may limit our understanding. A broader framework—one that treats the manuscript as a deliberately ambiguous or hybrid system—might help explain why centuries of character-focused efforts have not produced consensus.
I offer this note with respect for the extensive work already done in this field, and with the hope that it may contribute, even in a small way, to ongoing discussion.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Kind regards,
Du Uyen Linh
Independent reader and observer