The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[rikforto]

This is not true:

Strictly speaking the COT and the SPS=SBJ claims are logically independent: either one of them could be true even if the other is false.  But of course if the SPS=SBJ is true, the COT becomes much more likely, and vice-versa.

They are mutually contradictory. There was no "local language" in 1400 that existed in one-to-one reflex with Classical Chinese on each syllable. You can not square SPS=SPJ (which matches to the syllable) with The Dictation Scenario (requiring a local language which does not exist in reflex this way to Classical Chinese). Again, this is not an issue of pronunciation standards or script typology, which continue to be a red herring here. The more you find that the text matches Classical Chinese, the less likely it is another language was being dictated. Again, I understand you are using the transcription in the characters, but again, transcribed any which way that text is in Classical Chinese.

And to be clear, there's no relevant linguistic reconstruction here; all of these languages, including period-appropriate pronunciation, are directly attested and in continuous transmission. Classical texts are understood about as well as any Greek or Latin text, and if you were trying to cast doubt on Latin herbals this way on this forum you'd be rightly pilloried. (And yes, I am aware this leaves some room for specific things to be unclear as in the Latin and Greek corpus, and I'm open to non-LLM evidence of specifics.) All of the reconstructions you are mentioning---controversial redundant affixes and Old Chinese pronunciations---are irrelevant by 400 CE, never mind 1400.

I also agree with Eggyk's observation that you are entwining SPS=SBJ, and hence are not logically independent in practice. This simultaneous entwining and contradiction is the heart of my objection!