The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[Jorge_Stolfi]

I mean, the examples are different. ... it seems to me that in such a situation, [the VMS Author] could have known [the local language] at a level where native speakers could simply understand him.

One can learn a language to a level approaching that of native speakers, even without explicit schooling, if one lives in their midst long enough.  Especially if the person is young and did not get there with family.  

Marco Polo claimed that he learned four languages during his Asian travels, including Persian and  Mongolian (but not Chinese).  He seems to have been quite fluent in the latter, enough to conduct diplomatic missions for the Khan, and could read the Mongolian script (which is mostly phonetic, not ideographic like the Chinese script)  That is believable, since he was about 20 and single at the time.

If the VMS Author lived in "China" for a few years, he would have learned more than how to buy food and lodging.  He must have spent hours each day chatting with other people in pubs and restaurants.  He must have made a few local friends, traveled around a bit, maybe even got a local girlfriend or wife.  He probably converted to the local religion and attended their rites.  

And, if things happened as proposed in the Dictation Scenario, the Author could well have asked a local doctor (the Dictator or someone else) afterwards about the meaning of some of the syllables, compounds, and phrases that he did not understand at the time. Like, what sort of medical condition is 贲豚 -- literally, "scampering piglet".

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)

But that is often the case even for native speakers, even if they have been through formal school.  How many English speakers can explain the meaning of the words in common expressions like "willy nilly" or "in its stead"?

Younger English speakers today seem to understand the word "literally" as the opposite of what it used to mean.  And I have seen someone ask why people use the word "dial" to mean "call someone through the cellphone".

Anyway, that is not an objection to the Dictation Scenario. The Author would have tried to record the sound of each syllable, independently of whether he understood (or misunderstood) it or not. 

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…

Well, the VMS itself is a highly unusual Medieval manuscript.  It is hard to believe that it could have been the result of perfectly ordinary processes and circumstances.

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

It’s just an exaggeration 

I was referring to the uneven margins, the lack of guide lines, and the repeated failure to plan the arrangement of figures and text on the page. 

The claims that the scribes made many mistakes during the copying process seem like a glaring assumption...

I still don't have hard proof of that, but the misaligned lines of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. indicate that he did not understand the text. In which case it would be a miracle if he did not make any errors in the copying.

Another evidence for scribal errors is the large number of words that fail to parse in any of the proposed models of word structure.  Those "invalid" words usually look like "valid" words with a single "spelling error" each. 

This is also an exaggeration.

What do you mean? That the quality of the vellum is not that bad? Or that the Author may not have been "financially challenged"?

[The Chinese Origin theory proposes]a multitude of events, which, in their unique combination, will give us this book.

The Old Testament itself is the product of thousands of events, including half a dozen episodes of merging and extensive "corrections" that modern scholars can detect but not fully unravel.  Why is that not a problem for that book? 

[The Chinese Origin] theory simply tries to explain everything at once. but explaining everything doesn’t mean bringing it into alignment. When we resort to this, it means that the theory cannot explain everything.

I don't understand this argument.  It seems to be contradicting itself.

My point, again, is that any origin theory must be able to account for everything we see in the VMS.  

If one claims that the VMS is the initiation ritual for a secret society, or a a bogus book that a quack would use to impress clients, or a record of the erotic fantasies of a lonely teenager -- he must explain how f68r2 and f89v2 and the starred parags section on  would fit into that alleged purpose. 

And he must explain also what those three big red weirdos on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. were supposed to mean, and why they were drawn there...

All the best, --stolfi