The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz)]

IMHO, the core scenario of the backstory, namely a European learning spoken Chinese and having a scribe transcribe a Chinese text orally into an invented phonetic script, is extremely far-fetched. If the author already understood spoken Chinese well enough, he could simply have translated the text into his own language instead of inventing a new script. If not, relying on oral dictation through intermediaries would have produced huge errors, yet the text shows patterns that are far too regular to be explained as random dictation artifacts.

Yes, it’s interesting (as I mentioned in a post last year) for me to explore such an uncommon hypothesis, but as the thread has continued, it has become increasingly hard to take seriously. It would need much, much more support to be convincing.

I can't believe you're still mulling over this theory

I can't believe that people are still clinging to the "European Origin" theory -- which is supported by  ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence, and contradicted by 408 tons (metric) of evidence.

The claim that the European Origin theory is supported by 'ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence' is scientifically untenable. It ignores the entire forensic reality of the object.

Let’s look at the '408 tons' of hard evidence that anchor this object to Europe, specifically Northern Italy:

- The radiocarbon dating (1404–1438) places the vellum in the early 15th century. The ink chemistry (Iron Gall) is consistent with European recipes of that period. The quire binding is European. Unless you suggest the 'Author' shipped 15 calfskins from Europe to Asia, processed them there, and shipped them back to be bound, the physical artifact is European.

- The Scribe, your own admission: You concede that 'The analysis of castle and dress drawings... makes it almost certain that the Scribe was from Northern Italy. If the scribe is Italian, the materials are European, and the style is Venetian/Lombardic, then the Null Hypothesis must be that the text is also of local origin. To argue otherwise requires extraordinary evidence, which the 'Chinese Theory' lacks.

- The 'bench' or 'gallows' are common in legal shorthand of the era. It is far more logical that a European scribe used familiar abbreviation symbols to write a constrained European code, rather than inventing a new phonetic script that coincidentally looks exactly like a Latin chancery ledger.

You cite low entropy as proof of a monosyllabic Asian language. This is a logical leap. Low entropy simply indicates a highly constrained system. A ledger, an index, or a technical list in Latin also exhibits low entropy and rigid structure because it is not narrative prose. We don't need to traverse the Silk Road to explain rigidity, we just need to look at a European inventory.

We are looking at a European artifact, written by a European scribe, using European symbols. The 'strangeness' comes from the method of encoding, not the continent of origin.

On this point, I agree with Alicia completely. Based on the evidence, if the scribe was (most likely) Northern Italian, the materials are European, and the graphic style is European, then the null hypothesis must be that the text itself is also of local (European) origin. To argue otherwise requires extraordinary evidence, which the Chinese theory fails to provide.

@Jorge_Stolfi and @eggyk

In agreement with others in the thread expressing their doubts, I am also still not convinced, with all the twists and turns you are giving to make the back story plausible. Ultimately, you need a plausible backstory, and this should be evident even now, without having understood your text, because your logic depends on it, since you are saying somebody went through all that inventing to make the VM “recipe” section.

You need to show that the statistical cloud explanation can come down on plausible contextual Earthly grounds.

Your explanation does not make sense on its own logical plausibility.

He goes to China. He learns orally some Chinese. Since he can’t read it, he asks others what it is. They say, it is a great medical or whatever book. He says, “I should take this back home”. He goes to a notary and says (in oral Chinese), “sir, I want you to copy this exactly as it is, so that I can show precisely what the book contains for research and university/publishing purposes if needed, since ultimately someone has to rely on the original text to benefit from it; but since I can understand oral Chinese, if you don’t mind, as you are scribing a copy for me, please read it aloud. This way, I can, at the same time you are scribing, write my translation of it in my own language; yes, there will be some terms and names that are just Chinese, and I have to study further their equivalents in my European context, so I will transliterate them directly, but words such as “it is used for this or that” are things I can just translate in my own language.” So, I will just transliterate in my own European (or whatever) language the Chinese words I don’t have equivalents for, while most will be in my own translated language. This way, I kiss two birds at the same time; I will have my translation and the original precise copy.”

He comes back to Europe, presumably in 1400s. He is excited to share it. He can publish his own translation (with the transcriptions in his own alphabet of some of the Chinese names, if needed), but the overall text is in his own language, prefaced as ‘hey, I found this great book, here is the meanings, some words here or there I use as in the original, heard orally, but I have easily translated the common repeated words such as “this is also used for this, or for that,” …; by the way, I will go to the scholars and those who may know Chinese, and also share the exact Chinese copy I asked some scribe to make, for proper verification, for those who may need it in the future.”

The above would have made the book available in Europe in 1400s in understandable language, not in 1700s.

Jorge, are you really serious about “Absolute Zero” for European origin of the VM! I think this is just telling of your extremely statistical reductionist logic being pursued. Everything else that may challenge your theory is dismissed as AFAIK errors, ifs and whens, decorative images are just that and not relevant since sections may not be of the same book, and so on, arguments. So, you end up having abandoned every other basis in the manuscript that challenges your statistical comparison theory just for the sake of your statistical finding, which themselves are based on certain “adjustments” regarding paragraph endings, star markings, page orderings, and so on.

I think these arguments must have developed over the many years trying to support your Chinese theory, and now are showing their extremely reductionist nature, unfortunately.

But, your backstory’s plausibility is zero, in my understanding. It just does not make sense. And it is not something you can ignore and postpone until the text is read. It goes to the heart of why the VM (section) exists in your view.