No I have not read books written by EG White. However, can you provide the author of the diagram that you posted and the source where it can be found. This information is of interest as it would prove beyond any doubt that my comment was misplaced.
After Googling 1844 SDA, your posted diagram popped up which claimed that the diagram was/is used in SDA circles.
It also provided the following link: -
http://christianitybeliefs.org/end-times-deceptions/the-little-horn-and-2300-days-of-daniel-8/ with an outline of the 1844 Great Disappointment.
I also found a source on the net for the diagram that you posted and it clearly states that it is an SDA Prophecy chart. However, the diagram or something similar, may have been generated from the work/teaching of William Miller. If this is the case then the diagram may have been penned by William Miller.
Other sources were focus on discrediting the SDA and their belief systems. One link that I saw was: -
christianitybeliefs.org/end-times-deceptions/the-little-horn-and-2300-days-of-daniel-8/
That being said, I do not have the time or the resources to spend more time considering this matter further.
Now, your language analogy was unfortunate as it was dependant on the Metadata of the participants. Even though I speak a variation of the English Language, because of the construction rules, i.e. bias of the language that I use, it does not mean that your understanding of what I might be saying is understood. The same is also true for understanding someone else's interpretations of Biblical Prophecy. The language Metadata may not be the same and so to be able to judge whether or not a person can speak the "language" as your analogy implies, we only have to listen to them speak to determine if they can speak the language, is also not true. The issue may lie with the other person. The issue may be your bias Metadata may actually hide any understanding, of what the other person is speaking, from you.
You state that I made your simple analogy of speaking a language more complex is not a true statement as Language communication is a complex issue. Simply moving from one state to another, does not mean that I will always understand what is being said. To have understanding the Metadata of both parties must be identical so that there can be understanding such that the understanding of the person receiving the verbal communication can come to the same understanding of the intended meaning as the communicator.
For example the meaning of the word "thong" between our two countries is completely different. I put a thong on my each of my feet to walk around on whereas you wear a "thong" because it is your descriptive word for a particular form of underwear.
Now by you not providing clarity as to the source and originator of the diagram that you posted, you are in reality saying something like, "I know something that you don't know, hee ha, hee ha." without being willing to clear up the matter quickly. A very dishonest form of argument. Know what I mean.
It does not change my conclusion and understanding of the original diagram.