The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[Rafal]

I feel very sorry to say that but like some others I feel it is weak.
Sorry Jorge but I think you may prefer to hear an honest opinion instead of silence.
And it felt for me quite disappointing after all these riddles, anagrams and "fact not theory" claims. "So is this the big thing?" I asked myself.
When you build a hype you need to live up to it.

Some comment:

- daiin, daiir, laiin are supposed in an arbitral way to mean the same but for example aiin or qoaiin are different

- in several cases these words don't even appear in the text but are parts of longer words which is ignored because it suits the theory.
  It is like saying word "cat" appears twice in the sentence:  "Cat is a category of animals"

- the matching possitions of "zhǔ" and "daiin/daiir/laiin" are still quite approximate

- "zhì" word which appears after "zhǔ" (supposed to be "daiin") is common in Chinese text but is absent in Voynich

- "hán hán" repetition is absent in Voynich
   

- on the other hand several repetitions in Voynich text aren't explained at all and don't match the Chinese text:
   

And this Chinese theory misses the fundamental thing - supposed nature of the Voynichese script. Is it phonetic or logographic? Is it alphabetic or syllabic?
If "zhǔ" is "daiin" then "d" is "zh" and "aiin" is "ǔ" ???  How is it supposed to work?

And come on, just one word? It's like claiming you solved VM because you read the word close to Pleiades as Taurus.

I am not totally negative, this theory could be examined further which would give more data supporting or contradicting it.
Check more paragraphs, give meanings to more words, explain why a lot of paragraphs begin with gallows

With the current data I will remain unconvinced.