The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[Jorge_Stolfi]

At one point I was flatly shouted down for suggesting that this means the languages are mutually intelligible:

The mutual intelligibility of the written Sinitic languages is a key assumption of your entire understanding of the COT.

NO IT IS NOT.  It is absolutely irrelevant to it.

You still have not understood the proposed Dictation Scenario at all, and you are fixated on certain distorted ideas on the nature of Chinese languages and script that you claim would have made it impossible.

YES,  THE MUTUAL INTELLIGIBILITY OF SINITIC LANGUAGES IS ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT TO THE DICTATION SCENARIO.

The Dictation Scenario involves only ONE language: the local language that the Author spoke, and that the Dictator used when reading each hanzi from the SBJ in the ZHB. 

All the stuff you quoted is presumably correct but irrelevant.

[rikforto]

The Dictation Scenario involves only ONE language: the local language that the Author spoke, and that the Dictator used when reading each hanzi from the SBJ in the ZHB. 

The reason we keep coming back around to this is that the SBJ and ZHB are identifiably not in a language spoken in the 1400. This is not a problem that can be solved by imagining a dictation scenario

[Aga Tentakulus]

   

I’m finding the upside-down characters a bit tricky.
To me, the wavy line symbolises warmth, so an upside-down character just doesn’t make sense.

[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.

[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

[eggyk]

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".

In such a case, why create a phonetic script at all? If the fundamental idea was to store the meaning of the symbols, why not just write the meaning of the symbols in plaintext next to the symbols?

So instead of: "'Chinese' Symbols" -> "Audible 'chinese' (dictator)" -> "Phonetic Symbols (voynichese)" -> "Audible Voynichese (author)" -> "Maybe Understanding"

you would have: "Unknown Symbol+Understanding" -> "Remember spoken 'chinese' for that word" -> "Audible 'chinese' (author)"

That way, taking chinese symbols back would actually represent a huge value to anyone interested in the eastern world. Some chinese writing would be understood for its meaning (including extremely important common verbs), and the VMS author would be able to start slowly working on a way to write chinese phonetically if he wished to do so. Alternatively, they would have been able to simply teach people how certain symbols are pronounced, so that they might be more prepared for future eastern travels. 

Proper nouns would require some kind of phonetic transliteration at some point of course, but those could surely be approximated in plaintext too? That was often done in arabic just fine. Creating a consistent phonetic alphabet instead would have been far longer and more difficult.

[ololololo]

Stolfi, you’re right about the statements regarding language, and in this regard I agree with you. But the nuances remain:

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

That’s an exaggeration on my part. I was referring to my story about orphaned children

Well, the VMS itself is a highly unusual Medieval manuscript.

I see its uniqueness, probably in its individual and rather careless style. But otherwise, for me, the VMS style is not much different from an ordinary school notebook. By the way, Astrology also has some schoolboyish traits. For me, the diagram with the Oresme map is simply a visual demonstration of geocentrism, and the diagram with the red text is a simplified view of the planets (instead of zodiac signs, it seems to list their names. This is usually done to help remember the names).

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

This can be explained by the fact that the author had no reason to write in huge Gothic letters and to carefully craft each letter. He had no reason to put in the effort.

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.

Well... The Old Testament is a book that was created over a long period of time. It is not the work of a traveling merchant. On top of that, it’s a religious book. This is a more serious and extensive topic than recipes.
Rewriting the Old Testament is not the same as rewriting VMS. It could have been supplemented, or it could have been rewritten from 4 different sources.

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

Chinese theory truly explains only the text and the red symbols. The rest is in question (including astrology with European features).

[nablator]

Chinese theory truly explains only the text and the red symbols.

Truly.

Only if you are willing to overlook 99% of the text, accept that the big red weirdos are a a good match (they are not, even upside down)...

[Jorge_Stolfi]

In such a case, why create a phonetic script at all? If the fundamental idea was to store the meaning of the symbols, why not just write the meaning of the symbols in plaintext next to the symbols?

So instead of: "'Chinese' Symbols" -> "Audible 'chinese' (dictator)" -> "Phonetic Symbols (voynichese)" -> "Audible Voynichese (author)" -> "Maybe Understanding"

you would have: "Unknown Symbol+Understanding" -> "Remember spoken 'chinese' for that word" -> "Audible 'chinese' (author)"

In modern Chinese there are officially 8105 distinct characters, of which ~3500 are supposedly learned by students gradually through the 9 years of compulsory schooling, which ends when they are ~15 years old.  Those 3500 hanzi are supposedly necessary and sufficient to read newspapers and other common literature.    

The SBJ itself uses about 1000 distinct characters, many of which are names of plants or medical conditions.  Many would have been rare already by 1400.  In 2-3 cases, the original meaning of the character was unknown by that time, even to doctors.

There is no way that the Author would have learned the meaning or the pronunciation of more than a couple dozen Chinese characters, even of the ones which he could understand when spoken.  Only a scholar who made his top priority to learn the script (like some Jesuit missionaries did, ~1600) could do that to a useful level; and even so it would take him at least a few years of intense study.

Therefore, the Chinese characters would be useless to the Author back in Europe, with or without the accompanying glosses.

Moreover, writing the glosses would be much harder than what you  may think.  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is volume 5 the Zhenghe Bencao (ZHB), the printed medical encyclopedia which seems to be the source from which the Author got the SBJ.  The SBJ is the parts printed in large font, white on black, scattered through the 26 volumes.  A you can see, even if he acquired a copy of that encyclopedia, there would be no space to write down the meaning and/or pronunciation next to each character.

So, in order to implement your suggestion, he would have to copy the Chinese characters of the SBJ by hand.   That is a very time-consuming and error-prone job; just try it. It would easily take him 10x as long as writing down the dictation phonetically. 

Back to Red Rooster recipe: if the local language that the Author could speak was modern Mandarin (which it totally wasn't, but just suppose), this is what the Dictator would have said out loud, reading the SBJ from the ZHB:

dān xióng jī: zhǔ: (nǚ rén) bēng zhōng, lòu
xià, chì bái wò. bǔ xū, wēn zhōng, zhǐ xuè,
tōng shén, shā dú, bì bù xiáng. tóu: zhǔ: shā
guǐ. fáng: zhǔ: ěr lóng. cháng: zhǔ: yí nì.
pí chī guǒ huáng pí: zhǔ: xiè lì. niào bái:
zhǔ: xiāo kě, shāng hán hán rè. hé yǔ: zhǔ:
xià xuè bì. jīzǐ: zhǔ: chú rè huǒ chuāng,
diān jìng; kě zuò: hǔ pò.

The Author probably understood correctly the words in green, because (IIUC) they are all common words like "red", "male", "chicken", "mainly", "woman", "red", "white", "blood", etc.  The others seem to be mostly medical terms that I suppose he would not have learned even after living for years in the place.

And much of that text is 2-3 syllable compound terms whose meaning he probably did not know, even if he got the meaning of the individual syllables.  He probably understood niào (excrement) and bái (white), but he may have not have figured out that niào bái mean the white part of chicken poo, which is mostly You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..  

According to the SBJ, niào bái is a treatment for xiāo kě.  He may have understood both syllables -- xiāo = "extinguish, consume" and kě = "thirst"; but he probably would not have known that the pair did not mean "satiate thirst", but rather "wasting thirst" -- which my lalamo says is "diabetes".  So recording [his idea of] the translation, instead of the sound, would have been an error that could not be fixed later.

And asking for an explanation of every syllable and compound would have been waaaay too time-consuming

"Wait, stop -- you said 'red male chicken'? Why red?"
"Could be any color, but all things being equal, red remedies are the most powerful.  Every doctor knows that."
"If you say so..."
"By the way, you are paying me per hour, right? Including explanations like this one?"
"Yes, yes, I will pay per hour, don't worry.  Now, would you please start again from the jī?"

Creating a consistent phonetic alphabet instead would have been far longer and more difficult.

Definitely not.  He could have defined the Voynichese alphabet in a couple of hours, and memorized it with a few hours of  practice.

All the best, --stolfi

[rikforto]

dān xióng jī: zhǔ: (nǚ rén) bēng zhōng, lòu
xià, chì bái wò. bǔ xū, wēn zhōng, zhǐ xuè,
tōng shén, shā dú, bì bù xiáng. tóu: zhǔ: shā
guǐ. fáng: zhǔ: ěr lóng. cháng: zhǔ: yí nì.
pí chī guǒ huáng pí: zhǔ: xiè lì. niào bái:
zhǔ: xiāo kě, shāng hán hán rè. hé yǔ: zhǔ:
xià xuè bì. jīzǐ: zhǔ: chú rè huǒ chuāng,
diān jìng; kě zuò: hǔ pò.

Again, this assumes homophone disambiguation, which is the entire ballgame here.

For instance, it is true that 雄 is read xióng and that 雄 means male in certain contexts, but it does not follow that xióng readily means "male". It can You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. indicate any of 熊, 胼, 赨, or 能, which each have their own meanings. It is likewise true that 雞/鸡 can be read as jī, but it does not follow that jī is "chicken". It can be You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. 丌, 乩, 僟/仉, 兵, 出, 刉, 刏, 剞, 勣/?, 叽, 吂, 咭, 唢, 唧, 喞, 喫/吃, 嗘, 嘰/叽, 圼, 基, 墼, 奅, 奇, 姫, 姬, 尐, 局, 屐, 峜, 嵆, 嵇, 嵞, 幽, 幾/几, 憮/怃, 擊/击, 攪/搅, 朞, 期, 机, 枅, 棇, 樍, 機/机, 檯/台, 激,  犄, 璣/玑, 畸, 畿, 磯/矶, 禨/?, 积, 稘, 稽, 積/积, 笄, 筓, 箕, 簊, 綾/绫, 緑/绿, 績/绩, 缁, 羁, 羇, 羈/羁, 耭, 聻/?, 肌, 脐, 芨, 菾, 蘂/蕊, 虀, 虮, 蛣, 襀/?, 覉, 覊, 覘/觇, 觭, 諅, 譏/讥, 譤, 讥, 賫/赍, 賷/赍, 赍, 跡/迹, 跻, 踐/践, 踥, 蹟/迹, 躋/跻, 躸, 迹, 銈/?, 錤/?, 鐖/?, 鑇/?, 鑙, 隒, 隮/?, 雞/鸡, 鞿/?, 韲, 飢/饥, 饑/饥, 饥, 鰿/?, 鳮, 鷄/鸡, 麡/?, 齄, 齎/赍, 齏/齑, 齑, or 几.

One must wonder, then, how a Mandarin speaker copes. Well, part of knowing Mandarin is knowing which syllables go together. One must simply recognize that xióng next to jī is rooster, and the basic strategy there is how Old Chinese went from being monosyllabic to Mandarin being largely polysyllabic. However, that basic strategy only works if "xióng jī" actually means rooster. The problem is that the great majority of Chinese languages do not use 雄雞 as rooster, including most varieties of Mandarin, including the spoken prestige varieties in Beijing and Nanjing.

This also wreaks havoc on deciding which words to even parse. Yes, 血 at least has remained fairly stable in meaning and use as these things go, but there are other, unrelated words pronounced xuè, and some appear in compounds. Should you be parsing "zhǐ xuè" or "xuè" or "xuè tōng"? What happens when you guess wrong? Even assuming all the green words before to be recognizable, a fact already demonstrated false, there's a huge amount of lost context in the black words by that point. This may not be so bad for xuè in this exact context, but for every green word? Bearing in mind that the parsing may simply not exist in "the local language"?

I cannot stress enough for you and people reading this---that text printed there is not Mandarin Chinese. It is Classical Chinese transcribed from a Mandarin pronunciation of the characters; it has the same status that Ecclesiastical Latin has as Italian, except if it were impossible for even modern-day Latin speakers to understand Latin mass. To this point, I will give Shira the last word:

It is worse with Literary Chinese, where the phonology is decidedly unhelpful in understanding the text. This would be a trilingual endeavour between the speaker's topolect (Mandarin, in your assumption, I believe?), Literary Chinese prose (which has diverged consierably in grammar and is not readily understood by a listener), and the scribe. Dictating this isn't unheard of (e.g. Ministers would dictate Literary Chinese-medium messages to the Emperor, and the Hongwu Emperor did engage in this), but it is not considered realistic for anyone but the most educated of Chinese. It is hard to express just how important the characters themselves are in disambiguating Literary Chinese, lest you get lost in 其/期/齐/奇, 工/公/功/攻/宫/弓, or something like that. It is less ambiguous in Middle Mandarin, but still an extremely unusual situation.