The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[tavie]

As I tried to explain in my Voynich Day talk, in any study of the VMS you cannot avoid assuming some Origin Theory, aka "fictional story to explain how the VMS ended up exactly as we see it". 

But not everyone may agree with your claim that each of us must assume an Origin/language theory. 

Especially if this is what is leading you to conclude that people think it is a cypher because - and only because -  they believe the language is (Indo?)European.  And that criticism of the Chinese Theory stems from people's belief that the language is European.

OK.  So, if you are not assuming that the underlying language is European, why are you so negative about it being a "Chinese" (East Asian monosyllabic) language?  

I can't speak for rikforto's reasons. But it is perfectly possible for someone to criticize the Chinese Theory because they find the evidence unpersuasive for it and therefore see the theory as unproven.  Or even because they think the absence of certain evidence makes the theory not only unproven but unlikely.  

It doesn't necessitate a conviction that the language is Indo European.  Plenty of people criticized the Turkish theory, and it wasn't because they were convinced the language could not be Turkish because it was Latin.  

You stressed a couple of times in this thread that your belief was driven by evidence, but I feel you're not allowing for the possibility that this applies to others who disagree with you, when you make sweeping statements about why they hold their positions.