The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[ololololo]

The encryption method would have to be specifically designed to get that result. For instance, if every token contains some null letters -- even if just one, in a fixed position -- each word type of the original will become any of N different word types in the cyphertext, for each of the N possible choices of nulls. That multiplication of word types would be plainly visible in the Zipf plot -- unless the possible null choices are made with different, carefully tuned probabilities.

And the same "plausibility" objection applies to gibberish generators. In the copy-and-mutate method, for instance, the seed text must already be statistically similar to Voynichese (which already creates a chicken-and-egg problem) and the mutate procedure must be complex and fine-tuned to preserve the statistics.

I can't disagree with that. This is especially applicable to the Naibbe cipher, which uses full‑fledged tokens like aiin as glyphs. This is a very easy way to achieve the desired result... Nevertheless, this shows that, with certain assumptions, it is quite easy to reproduce the laws of VMS.

In my numeric cipher, particles such as o, a, ok/ot, etc., are used as digits. Perhaps this is due to the lucky choice of glyphs and numbers, but nevertheless, with such a small set, it is possible to create some vords.