The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[Jorge_Stolfi]

I've outlined how the fact these are fully realized languages applies to Classical Chinese several times now, and why the differences are so hard on the COT ...

And I have explained several times why your objections are not valid... 

I think that assumption does not sit with other assumptions you've made or conclusions you've drawn

Again, the scenario we are discussing (with the Dictator reading the white-on-black text from the ZHB or similar book in the local language,while the Author writes it down with his phonetic script) is only my best guess for how Starred Parags section (SPS) came to be a transcription or translation of SBJ, approximately one-hanzi-for-one-Voynichese-word.  If you think that scenario is unlikely, what alternative do you propose instead?

Depending on where [the Standard language] it is being taught, it is sometimes realized with the prescribed standard pronunciation from Beijing, but in Guangdong specifically it is taught using a Guangzhou phonetic standard. ... To be fair, I have seen sources word this in a way that really does imply Standard Chinese with Guangzhou's pronunciation is simply Cantonese.

When you say "pronunciation" and "phonetic standard", I don't know whether you mean "accent" (like an Italian speaking French with a strong Italian accent) or "reading" (like an Italian reading aloud each printed French word as the equivalent Italian word: "il ne me plait pas de tout" --> "quello non mi piace niente di tutto").

Languages that are not Mandarin have different vocabulary, syntax, and particles, so regardless of phonology ... The differences exceed the linguistic diversity in the Romance family

Yes, the vocabularies of Mandarin and Cantonese (including particles) differ at least as much as the vocabularies of French and Italian, possibly more.  I posted examples myself.  That alone makes them not mutually intelligible.

As for the syntactic differences between Mandarin and Cantonese, they would be less important than those between the Classic and Colloquial forms of the written language. As you say:

The reason why the popular movements largely agreed to stop using the 2500 year old [written] language of the elite classes was because it was frigging hard to teach. Recitations [in any dialect] are hard to understand, it has remote grammar, and a large proportion (like, 80%+) of the [classical readings of] lexicon [in any dialect] had changed usage and/or meaning.

(Clarifications mine.)

If the dictator just read each hanzi in Cantonese (most likely, I think), the result would have been Cantonese with some obsolete Cantonese words and Old Chinese grammar. It would not be "Classic Chinese", which is only a written language; nor "Classic Mandarin with Cantonese accent".  But, out of consideration for the Author, maybe the Dictator replaced some Classic word, constructions, and particles with colloquial Cantonese ones.

However, those syntactic differences -- either Mandarin/Cantonese or Classic/Colloquial -- are not important for this discussion, because the syntax of the SBJ is extremely simple.  They would not significantly affect the Author's understanding of what the Dictator was reading, or of his notes after he went back to Europe.

That said, I think you are exaggerating the syntactic differences between the Chinese dialects.  AFAIK, all the Chinese dialects lack articles, gender and number inflections for nouns and adjectives, and verb inflections; which are the main syntactic differences between Romance languages.  What are the differences then?  Adjective-noun order?  Verb-subject-object order?  AFAIK, they are the same in all dialects. No? Can you give examples?

It is sometimes hard to tell if they are glossing over the little hitch that Standard Chinese read this way is not mutually intelligible with Cantonese or genuinely in error

Are you sure?  Again, are you confusing "read with Cantonese words" and "read with Mandarin words in a Cantonese accent"?

All the best, --stolfi