The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[oshfdk]

• That example is from the 1730s, when sophisticated encryption schemes were already old stuff.
  

I'm not sure we need to discuss this book here. You asked for an example of a community that created some secret book, here is it. Of course it's not the same as the Voynich Manuscript, but is the difference that important?

Could you name one manuscript written in a made up alphabet to represent the sounds of a foreign language? +100 points if this manuscript wouldn't contain any notes in the original language of the author.

Examples of alphabets created by outsiders are the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. alphabet and possibly the Georgian Alphabet by the Armenian Medieval linguist You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.; and the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (~1830)

I wasn't asking for examples of alphabets. All alphabets have been created by some people for some people and I think this would normally be a lengthy process and mostly in some teaching context and accompanied by copious notes. I was asking about a single example of a manuscript written in a made up alphabet to represent sounds of a foreign language (made up to record this particular manuscript and not to fill in the void of missing script in some language). This is the scenario that you propose in the Chinese theory, as I understand it. 

As for the lack of notes in European language: the book you cited is an example of a book written entirely in code without a single note by the Author in plain language.  Do I get the 100 points for just that? At least 50 points? 

The book I cited is a cipher manuscript and it's not a phonetic representation of another language. Bonus points were for a phonetic script book with no notes in plain language.

No, but for the first two there is some good evidence: visible total lack of retracing in the text

This is simply and grossly false.  There is tons of visible retracing, in the text and in the illustrations.

I know of only two examples of retracing in the text of the MS. I've seen all the images you posted, unfortuantely, to me they don't look even remotely convincing. 

The "European" character of the illustrations is all in decorative elements.  Even that old-lady-with-staff-and-rosary picture, which I can believe was indeed copied from that German book (from memory, or though a long chain of bad copies), is just decoration.  That indeed tells us that the Scribe was European and drew inspiration from other European illustrations.

But there is no detail of the images that shows specifically European contents. Not even that the Author was European (although the COT is neutral on this point).

Again, this is your interpretation of what is "decorative" and what are the "contents". I can name a lot of distinctively European things in the imagery.
1) European castle. 2) European dragon. 3) Quite European Zodiac figures. 4) European cloths. 5) European hair styles.

Can you name anything of Asian origin?

Again, you are asking too much.  For a theory to be "scientific", it only needs to make predictions that can be tested in (say) decades at a feasible cost, and can disprove the theory.

For an experiment to prove a theory, it would have to disprove all possible alternative theories, even those that haven't been formulated yet and may be supported by evidence that is not yet available.

We are not trying to describe some natural law, we are trying to read a manuscript. If there is a solution, it's likely it will be a single final solution and its discovery will likely disprove all alternative theories, current or future, that are not compatible with this solution.

And I'm asking for what would it take for me to consider a theory that has basically no grounding in hard evidence. I can consider a theory based on conjectures, which I believe applies to MRT and the Chinese theory, if it can be quickly grounded by some clear and reproducible steps. For example, if any theory no matter how outrageous and bizarre will produce a repeatable and highly plausible plaintext for the manuscript that would match the linguistic and historical context, I would certainly prefer this theory to any reasonable and logical discourse that won't produce comparable results.