The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[rikforto]

Orthographies have clear rules for representing language, though. Like, I recognize the distinction you are drawing, but if this is an orthographic representation of a language---if Voynichese is an alphabet representing words---you've embedded in that claim the claim that we should be able to describe "proper writing". 

This should be especially true if the alphabet were made to purpose because there is no reason for historical spellings and various adaptation compromises that usually complicate this. The hypothesis of a made-to-purpose script would cut very hard against a complicated, inconsistent script, all else equal.

But even accepting the possibility that The Author, for whatever reason, made a complicated script from scratch, the fact that you have been unable to penetrate it is a problem for your theory, not for your critics. Assuming that it will be difficult to prove your theory might well explain why you have not proved it, but the thing you are explaining is that lack of convincing proof, at least in that domain!