The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[Jorge_Stolfi]

As a small tip, you could learn more about the historical context

What specifically do you mean?  The publishing history of the Shennon Bencao? Or the history of contacts between Europe and East Asia?

compare the grammar of Voynichese with the grammar of Early Modern Chinese

By "Early Modern Chinese" that I suppose you mean "the spoken language that was spoken in the 1400s and later evolved into modern Mandarin".  

I can't do that because I have not yet found how to read the Voynichese script, and I have identified only 3-4 words (and only 2 with some confidence).

And I don't know the language yet. Early Modern Mandarin is only one of 50+ possibilities.  

And it is not even the most likely one.  If the Author went by land, he may have stopped at any point after he reached Tibet.  And the probability decreases with distance; so Northern China is more likely than Central which is more likely than East.   If the last leg of his trip was by sea, the probability decreases as we go through Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, and South China.

And I don't speak any of those languages -- not a bit.  Not to mention how they were 600 years ago.

And one must not trust language reconstructions (or any other theory) by linguists.  They have the bad habit of mixing evidence-based deductions with pure guesses, without indicating which is which.

All the best, --stolfi