The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[rikforto]

The difficulties you are describing largely stem from the fact that your method does not, at present, produce a translation per se. This is true even if we take it as a given that you have identified the textual tradition. (You have not identified the source text; in fact you repeatedly brought up the issue that there is no singular Shennong Bencaojing as an explantion for some of the difficulties you are having.) On the terms of your claim here, you have only identified a correspondence between 12 of the paragraphs. I have two problems with this:

1. Unless there is a major advancement I have not seen, the method is not a translation, or, depending on how you want to split this hair, there are significant gaps in the translation. In the "rooster paragraph", for instance, only a handful of characters are identified. This identification does not yield certain translation of other characters in the paragraph, at least as of yet.
   
2. Outside of those 12 paragraphs, the SPS remains opaque. Your position is that you cannot presently identify them, so even if I allow that identification as in the previous point is "translation", most of the text remains opaque
   

I have made the case elsewhere on this thread why I think the identifications in the rooster paragraph are unconvincing, and I don't see a need to recapitulate those arguments here. My point in my most recent post was simply that what you've put forward is, on its own terms, much more limited than a translation. I will, if you provide them, look at the 11 new paragraphs you claim to have identified and update my beliefs based on that evidence, but I certainly don't see a translation at present