The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[davidma]

I agree about 0 evidence, but it's not absolutely hopeless. I mean there is still nothing that would conclusively disprove the "Chinese" theory.

This is not a problem, the theory doesn't suggest literally Chinese, but some eastern language with monosyllable structure, so it's ok if the patterns are not fully matched.


This is an abridged version.

You'll agree with me that leading with "this paper proves the Starred paragraph section is the SBJ" when your "proof" is a poorly fitted positional analysis is borderline delusional. I have nothing against the Chinese theory, however I have to reiterate that to make certain claims one needs strong evidence. If the paper had only suggested that daiin COULD be zhu then ok, but it doesn't, it takes it much further. 

On the second point, then it follows that if this isn't literally chinese, then daiin isn't literally zhu or zhu zhi, and the SBS isn't the SBJ. Language is important, if one makes an announcement of this magnitude (possibly THE biggest breakthrough in cracking the VM if this is correct) then I am expecting a lot more than "it could be this, but also that", because this is also what the turkish, the irish and a bunch of other theories do. 

Noted on the last point, I had missed the small paragraph under Fig. 7.