The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[Jorge_Stolfi]

first, you would have to establish that there was a "therefore" for "everyone".

OK, sorry for the unduly generalization.  I see that there are other "acceptable" theories, like gibberish or constructed language; and "European" has been taken in the broad sense, to include Hebrew, Arabic, and Turkish.  And now and then there are newcomers who suggest other languages, usually ones that they happen to know something about.  

And, IIUC, you believe that it is possible and fruitful to do "agnostic" research, without assuming anything about the language or origin.  I personally don't think that such research can lead anywhere, but anyway it is an alternative.

But most people who reject the Chinese Theory flat out, and now refuse to accept SPS≈SBJ, seem to do so because of that argument: "it looks European, therefore it must be European".  Like the post I was replying to.

All the best, --stolfi

---

Ultimately, we've yet to see any theory - whether European or 'Chinese' or neither - explain all the manuscript's strange statistics.

Well, name some of those "strange statistics", and I will see if I can explain them within the Chinese Theory.

All the best, --stolfi