The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[rikforto]

At one point we went around on this for awhile and the reason you are saying "things" is because you acknowledged that the interpretation of them as degrees was untenable in 1400.

I call them "things" because I do not know what those 30 labels+nymphs+stars represent. They could be Babylonian degrees of arc. They could be the 30 nymphs that preside each sign.  They could be the 30 girls that the Author planned to sleep with in each Zodiac period as soon as his mom would let him get out on his own.

We already went through that issue and it would be pointless to resume that discussion.  You can say that I still have no idea of whether the Chinese divided each of the 24 solar term intervals any further.  If they did, I don'k know how many parts went into each interval.  Thus I don't know what Chinese concept the 15 VMS nymphs would correspond to (but it could not have been those "Chinese degrees".)

But what the VMS nymphs represent is not important.  The important point is that the earliest pages of the VMS Zodiac -- Aries and Taurus -- apparently assumed a division of the Ecliptic into 24 equal "sectors".  Like the Chinese "solar terms", and unlike the common European scheme (a division of the year into 12 signs of slightly variable length in days)

What is interesting about this is what is not here:

If not degrees, what are they? A solar term divided the year, not the ecliptic, and did so based on time, not space. The division you are describing is based on work done with the Jesuits, and required a translation of Kepler's work. So, where is this pre-1645 example of dividing the ecliptic into 24 sections of exactly 15 "things"? 

It's not just that I have doubts that there could be some concept, it's that the entire idea of dividing the ecliptic with 24 evenly spaced solar terms didn't exist yet, and that making it exist required a scientific framework that wouldn't be invented anywhere for well over a century. You kinda do need to put up or shut up about that unless this is a theory about time travelling Jesuits. (I would love if this were a theory about time travelling Jesuits.)

There is a distinction to be had here between the linguistic difficulties you've been leaning on, that the hypothetical Author could not distinguish between words in spoken Chinese, and the kind of cultural reception these examples seem to reference, such as not knowing the exact context of hanging a rooster head on a gate. Your exposition might be providing clarity that is not in the text, but it seems like the text is understood from the way you are talking about it.

I don't get your point here. But the measurements strongly indicate that the Author did omit all the "flavor", "provenance", and "another name" fields from all entries, and the "amber is divine" and "hung chicken heads" and "chicken white grubs" comments from the "red rooster" recipe.  It would be silly for him to include those parts in his transcription; don't you agree?

What's interesting about this is what's not here. I asked:

I would like to see your sources on this reception, not because I think this is impossible, but because I want to be clear what exactly is being claimed.

Let me drop the politeness and the decision to preview my argument in the event it was genuine. Did you not reveal this is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.? Do you have a source on this?

I don't get your logic.  

"Do nothing" was also very much an option for Shakespeare when he considered whether he should write Hamlet.  It would have saved him a lot of hard work.  Does it follow that it is unlikely that he wrote it? Or that it is unlikely that Hamlet ever got written?

The SPS was written.  It strongly resembles a phonetic transcription of the SBJ.

Again what is missing here is interesting! 

It is still not clear to me whether or not you think The Author understood the dictation, and you certainly think it is full of errors that you have supposed were due to the difficulties the author would have had telling words apart. Why create that kind of record? Why write that?

I think it is clear that Shakespeare understood Early Modern English and that a playscript has a very clear social function. It is baffling to me in what way you think this addresses the key issues of my point

I am also not really sure I agree it strongly resembles a phonetic transcription of the SBJ, or how you would claim that given your statement that you cannot offer any phonological rules deduced from it.