Why and how the text could be Bavarian

[Jorge_Stolfi]

I can now rewrite the structure of large parts of the VMS into the VCCV (V1 C1 C2 V) structure without making to many assumptions. [...]This naturally gives rise to new word boundaries, which, however, are still “assumed” here. It's also fascinating that part of the code seems to be that the vowels in “Eva” are actually consonants, and vice versa.

Quite intriguing.  My hunches (not yet worth calling "theories)  are somewhat similar, somewhat opposite.

I believe that the VMS spaces are "honest", in that they were meant to be boundaries between syllables; although they are quite "noisy", since many spaces are spurious or missing.   

But I also assume that the syllable structure is CCVVVC, where each part is optional except that there must be at least one V.   So, comparing with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for the VMS word structure, it is my guess too that the gallows and benches (Ch, Sh, ee) and their -e suffixed variants would be vowels, while the dealers (d, l, r, s) would be consonants.  

But that would be too many vowels and too few consonants. So perhaps the circles (o, a, y) are modifiers for the dealers, that turn them into a decent set of consonants.    

But I also have a hunch that the circles may be pitch marks -- say o = low, a = mid, y = high.  Thus a syllable with pattern o..y would be  in Madarin's ascending tone (á) while a syllable like a..o..y would be in the "dipping" tone (ǎ).  If this hunch were correct, it would explain why the circles seem to be so 'noisy": if a syllable that ends with high pitch is followed by one that starts with high pitch, there would be no need to write the y twice, and either one could be omitted (or not).

Anyway, these are still just vague hunches.

(By the way, my model as described in that post needs updating. I am now convinced that m is generally a scribal abbreviation for in or iin, and all instances of ir are typos (rather, "quillos") for iin. And many or all ar may be typos for ain.  So the codas are only n, in, iin, or iiin. And these claims are independent of the Chinese Origin theory.)

(Except that it would mean that there are only four codas.  Just as many as the Mandarin tones.  Hmm...)

All the best, --stolfi