The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[rikforto]

Also, as I look at how I might prove the negative here, I don't think the identification between 主 and multiple Voynichese spellings maintains the Chinese Theory? My understanding was that the idea was that particular statistics of Voynichese could be explained by linking them to features of whatever language the text ended up encoding. The texts that originally suggested the entropy might be low enough in East Asian Languages did so because features appear in a certain order. Pinyin, for instance, has initials, medials, vowels, medials, finals, and tone number. After the initials, the size of these categories are quite small, which would account for the relatively low bigram entropy. Other Romanizations, both in Chinese and other languages, have a similar quality and similar sources of entropy.

All else equal, taking recourse to apparent homophony between daiin, dair and yaiir should increase, rather than decrease, the entropy, because allowing additional spellings should make the bigrams less, rather than more, predictable, raising the entropy.

I cannot fully close the case with this as all things may not be equal, but short of identifying the source of that inequality, I do not see how you can maintain Voynichese homophonic spelling as a solution under the Chinese Theory?