Question on the authenticity of the zodiac month labels and a spitball hypothesis
I found a link this sub basically coincidentally after being reminded of the manuscript and reading a bit about it a week or so ago. One of the more interesting quirks of the manuscript to me is the small fragment of text that is indisputably a real, unenciphered language (as opposed to "Michitonese") in the Latin alphabet, namely the labels of months on the zodiac charts.
My question is how much investigation there has been, and whether there is a consensus, on whether these labels are authentic to the original manuscript as opposed to a subsequent addition. Besides being linguistically out of place, the months seem to be darker/heavier/less faded than the surrounding text and drawings. If the month names were a later addition, then the language/region they're from wouldn't necessarily imply anything about the ultimate origin/creators of the manuscript.
On the other hand, I can imagine a scenario for why the original authors would deliberately write the months as such. From the visual context, it is obvious what the zodiac charts are even without the legible months, such that a word in the middle of the chart could really only be interpreted as the name of either the month or the associated zodiac sign. If the labels were written in Voynichese, they could be used as a crib if the manuscript is a cipher, or a set of words/morphemes with known meanings to search for elsewhere if it's in an actual language (real or constructed). This may well have occurred to the authors if they were in fact intentionally keeping the text obfuscated.