The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[ololololo]

There is no such thing as real "proof" outside of mathematics. There are only probabilities.

Well, then your theory isn’t proven; it’s just a possibility

It is impossible to avoid that conclusion if you try transcribing any significant part of the VMS from the scanned images (as I did -- 80% of the text since last year, not counting what I transcribed back in the 1990s).

And they definitely exist, I’m not arguing that. But there’s a problem: when you say that the scribe made mistakes several times, writing the words kaiin, laiin, and dain instead of daiin, that’s an assumption, because it can’t be proven in any way, but without it, the SPS = SBJ theory falls apart.

I never claimed there was some "lunar month" stuff in the VMS.

Sorry, I added a bit of my own Someone was explaining the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. diagrams during the lunar month.

As I explained back in 2002, I was forced to accept the theory that Voynichese was a phonetic rendering of a monosyllabic language because of the results I got while trying to prove that it was not natural language.

Let me explain why I mentioned phonetics. I don’t consider this an assumption, but again, in the case of daiin kaiin laiin, this is also an assumption (maybe the author heard it that way and wrote it down). But here, perhaps, I got carried away and wasn’t entirely right…

I did not say that it was "the only one of its kind". I said that it is the only one I know that can plausibly explain why the VMS looks that way and why it was created.

The author wrote a book in phonetic Chinese on strange folios, contacted various Chinese people to have their works dictated to him, and upon returning to Europe, he decided to abruptly abandon his great endeavor to enlighten Europeans about Asian medicine, hired inept scribes, and made them copy his drafts so that he could sell them...
This is more of a fairy tale than an explanation. And I see a contradiction — if the author wanted to enlighten Europe with knowledge of Chinese medicine, why, upon returning to his homeland, did he lose hope and decide to simply sell this book?
And why is the explanation “someone wrote a book and encrypted it” suddenly no longer simple, logical, and at the same time obvious?

More precisely, it looks like a collection of ~4 separate books that include a herbal, a materia medica, an astronomical and astrological treatise, and a treatise that may be about anatomy of about medicinal baths.

But that "explanation" alone does not explain why the Author had to devise a new alphabet, why the glyph look like that, why it had to be encrypted but at the same time it had to be illustrated with bizarre diagrams and "bathing" scenes. It does not explain the complex word structure; the absence of identifiable articles, pronouns, copulas, etc.; the repeated words; and a lot more.

I’m telling you — it’s a reference guide. You looked at the required plant, looked at the required diagram. 
An unknown alphabet and its peculiarities? Roman numerals also look strange, and the Bavarian cipher looks very strange as well.
Was what you’re talking about in the Copiale cipher, for example (if we don’t remove the nulls)?

Call it how you wish, but that was a deduction that followed from comparing the longest SBJ recipe ("red rooster") to the longest single-star parag of the SPS (f105v.32)

I can really call it whatever I wish. For me, the recipe in which you:
1). will make the fewest assumptions to ensure compliance.
2). can identify most of the characters

Another possible explanation is that the Author had some difficulty distinguishing the sounds of k, d, and l as pronounced by the Dictator.

If the author understood what this word was, but had difficulty distinguishing the sounds, he would probably have realized that kaiin = laiin = daiin, and would have written it down correctly.
If he didn’t understand what they were telling him, why did he write this book in the first place?

That the Scribe was sloppy is also an observation from the text and drawings of the whole book.

I was referring to the cliché of Scribe’s mistakes.

That is silly. YOU may say that those coincidences that I pointed out are not enough to make you believe in the SPS=SBJ claim. But cryptographers would jump on their seats if they found much less than that in their puzzles.

What didn’t satisfy you about my example with Carmen Arvale? Do you not like it? But wait, isn’t that, in essence, also an ideal match? The author just made a mistake with two words, nothing to worry about. Or it could have been done by his silly scribe.
Don’t you think I’ve proven that Quire 13 = Carmen Arvale? 
I literally reproduced your own methods and your own logic.

And yes, cryptographers would jump, but even that wouldn’t make me believe that the comparison with the Red Rooster fully proves the Chinese theory