The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[ololololo]

Sorry, I don't see the point.

I mean, the examples are different. The author of VMS didn’t study Chinese; he taught it, and during self‑study outside of school, many nuances could have arisen...Generally, it seems to me that in such a situation, he could have known it at a level where native speakers could simply understand him. He might have known how to speak correctly, but he didn’t understand why it had to be said that way (just as I didn’t understand before what “vais” means in French, even though I kept using it everywhere).

Rather, the result of a highly unusual process, very different from those that produced all other "European" Medieval manuscripts. Not necessarily more intricate.

There’s a problem. The more unusual, the more incredible…

It is obvious from the manuscript itself that the Scribe had no experience copying and illustrating books...

It’s just an exaggeration  The claims that the scribes made many mistakes during the copying process seem like a glaring assumption...

And the Chinese Origin theory is just that...

I don’t see the logical chain. This theory simply tries to explain everything at once.

It is a fact that the parchment was mostly offcuts of "reject" quality. The "impoverished Author" theory is just the obvious deduction from that fact. Otherwise, why would he use such bad vellum for a project of that magnitude?

This is also an exaggeration. Overall, focusing on this is a poor strategy. The general message of what I’ve said is that history is built on a multitude of events, which, in their unique combination, will give us this book.

You mean "unusual"?

Yes, there are problems with the translator.

Well, of course, any origin theory must be consistent with everything we see in the VMS.

Yes, but explaining everything doesn’t mean bringing it into alignment. When we resort to this, it means that the theory cannot explain everything.