The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[oshfdk]

OK, it seems I must flesh out my version of the "Chinese" theory.

What I like about this theory: it doesn't cling to overly realistic most likely scenarios of writing a codex. Given the Voynich Manuscript is an oddball, I find nothing wrong with thinking that it was created as a result of some unlikely chain of events. I think the small number of travellers to/from the Orient or using separate Reader, Author and Scribe to explain the unusual combination of the features of the MS is not problematic. 

What I find strange in this theory:
1) Total lack of notes in Latin or another native language of the Author. If the Author's goal was not the concealment of information, but spreading/keeping the knowledge, I can imaging each page of the original transcription would be heavily annotated.
2) Lack of any images or inscriptions that would unambiguously link it to the Orient. Even if the Author couldn't draw well, sketching a few important symbols or objects seemed reasonable.
3) Generally, I think this would have been partially solved a long time ago, if this was just a faithful phonetic representation of a natural language, regardless of the language. Start with the labels, try identifying what they mean using images and repeated labels, find these labels in the text, ..., get a solution. There are attempts like this a few times a year, but they quickly break down, because there is no consistency in labels and how the same words are used in the text.

By the way, there was a thread about Chinese astrology in VMS last year: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.