The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[eggyk]

Some fields of the SBJ recipes were apparently omitted by the author on all recipes.  Those are the "nature", "another name", and "provenance" fields, introduced by the keywords 味, 一名, and 生, respectively.  Usually the first is right after the entry title, and the other two are at the end of the entry; but when an entry is divided into sub-entries, they may occur at the beginning or end of a sub-entry.  

Anyway, those fields and their extents are trivially identified.  So I always delete them from the SBJ entry before looking for a match.

I also delete unconditionally some comments that would make no sense outside China (or even inside it). Like that note about the heads of chickens that were hung above the East Gate.

So, this topic of omissions has been mentioned a few times. Does the idea of the omission of certain sections make sense with the rest of your theory? I'm under the impression that the VMS text is supposed to represent the spoken SBJ written phonetically. Therefore, those omissions imply three possibilities (sub possibilities can be "and/or"):

1) That the source SBJ text was already lacking those sections. 
or
2) That the dictator omitted certain sections not relevant to the transcriber when dictating
  2b) That the transcriber was aware of the sections that exist in the SBJ despite not being able to read it
  2c) That the transcriber was able to communicate exactly which types of information they wanted to hear, and that the dictator should skip other parts
or
3) That the VMS author later omitted sections from the voynichese draft
  3b) That the VMS author strongly understood the spoken language when respoken aloud later, enough to be certain which sections were which.

I don't understand how you know which sections were apparently omitted, or how you know why. I'm getting the impression that these omissions are having to be included because the VMS was not matching to the original SBJ text as hoped. If so, this may be an issue when trying to validate this theory, because these paragraphs are no longer being matched with the SBJ as written, but instead being matched with a version that has been altered until a match occurs. 

Of course, it's entirely possible that you are correct about what exactly was omitted, but it does require explanation and should be extemely consistent in methodology if the results are to be taken seriously. For example, "they always omitted this common section" can be consistently applied and reasonably argued, but "this probably wouldn't have meant anything to people outside China" sounds reasonable on the whole, but is fundamentally subjective and open to interpretation.

If I missed a post where you addressed this already, I apologise.