eggyk wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So you have no idea what the text is, could be a conlang, or gibberish, or a ciphered romance language, or ciphered germanic language, but you draw the line at tones? Why is that any more or less likely than any of the others?
I reached my conclusion because the Ming Dynasty, the Chinese empire at the time the Voynich Manuscript was written, had a policy of isolation called Haijin, this policy aimed to restrict foreign access, so I feel like a theory like the COT must explain this, and plus, exposure to East Asian Languages in 15th Century Europe was limited, and wouldn't it be easier for a European scribe to encipher a made-up, or even European language? Or even easier, to just, make it up completely? This is why I draw the line at tones, because the average European scribe would most probably not have known about them, and theories like European ones have less question marks to explain, making them more likely in my eyes.
In general, I just feel like tones are less probable because a European scribe would have an easier time making a cipher out of a European language than an East Asian one, especially when China at the time put restrictions on foreign trade.
Of course, if more evidence appears that shows signs for a Chinese theory, like the COT, I would accept it with open arms, as I have said previously. I do appreciate criticism, in my opinion, without criticism, people wouldn't engage with other's ideas, and without that engagement, we wouldn't be where we are now, so really, I thank you for this, and if more evidence shows up, I may change my mind, but for now, I remain unconvinced.