The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[oshfdk]

Wouldn't it be more productive to pick apart the study itself, rather than Stolfi's post hoc backstory?

There would be a most common word in most texts. If we take two longest sentences from two texts of similar sizes, it's not strange that each would contain the respective most common word of either text. It would be a very promising find if the count of the most common word in the longest sentence of both texts would be the same non trivial (>2) number, but in this case this didn't happen even after reinterpreting other similar words as daiin. So, I'm not really sure what to pick apart here.

EDIT: Let's look from a different perspective. Suppose the corresponding paragraph of the Voynich MS was a mangled phonetic representation of that Chinese recipe. I guess this would be immediately obvious after matching other repeating characters in this recipe, I think there should have been a few, and the report won't be "daiin = use", but will be a small dictionary, a couple of other phrase matches and likely the gold medal in the VMS studies. This didn't happen for some reason. What is the reason?