The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[rikforto]

The reason I posted the graphic was to show that two different versions of the same text, with completely different grammar (i assume) and different lengths have "matches" that look similar in accuracy to the "matches" Jorge first presented. If I had shown that graphic, but hypothetically presented it as voynichese vs classical chinese, and then said it's evidence of an Voynichese-"Art of War" equivalency, I assume the response would be very critical. The point is, though, that those matches really are matches, even though they look spurious. 

Yes, my explicit position has been for quite some time this is not a robust result, and I think that graphic indicates how much we should not expect a provable match from this approach. And I think it's worth remembering that if the text is in translation, it is not the text that Jorge has identified, and that bears on both the claim it's been identified and how to proceed. Let's grant that this works as an identification method. Is the solution to the differences deleting clauses from the original Art of War? Removing a bunch of the verbs? (!!!) Insisting that the Art of War need not be translated because there is no language in the original to be translated? No, and so this would still bear on Jorge's methodology and claims. I would prefer to have the conversation on those terms because I think it is likely to reveal problems in accepting the match as made. But the current barrier to that discussion is that there is no recognition that the second line of your graphic even exists, let alone what the consequences of recognizing that would be.