The Voynich Ninja

(07-08-2020, 12:00 AM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In other words, this alphabet is the situation specific alphabet to created only for VMS, which has been created with consisting of both the syllabic alphabet, the simple alphabet and the tamga-scripts and the numbers. For this reason, now we are reading a simple word in very different ways.

This does worry me, because it gives you so much freedom in translating each sentence. If your first interpretation doesn't make sense you can just go down the list until you find an interpretation that fits. If you gave your translation system to someone knowledgeable in Old Turkish and they translated a page, they could come out with a completely different translation to you and your sons. So how can your claim ever be tested?

(06-08-2020, 10:35 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.if I read any words in Turkish in VMS, why should I think they are in German?

I don't want to tell here the history of the Ottoman Empire, I just want to say that the Turkish language was present in Europe, so the Turkish words could be borrowed by the local languages. Personally I know several Turkish words since my childhood, except that I understood that it was Turkish when I became interested in the Voynich manuscript. So the presence of Turkish words (Greek, Latin etc) gives us hope, certainly, but not a guarantee to read the whole text.
As we do not use the same alphabet, I am interested in your work, I am waiting to see the translation of a paragraph. Good luck!

(07-08-2020, 12:35 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Ahmet Ardıç Wrote:Moreover, just like in modern Turkish, this word appears in VMS as both an independent word and as a word suffix. So, in this point, the overlap between Turkish and VMS is very clear. All I can tell you is that the word is not used in the same meaning, or in the same function with all of these repetitions in VMS. 

I notice that you emphasized this three times.

This overlap happens in many languages. There are numerous suffixes that can also stand as words. Depending on the language, patterns like -ham -burg -mont -ten -man -ton function both as suffixes and as individual words, so this characteristic is not specific to Turkish.

Yes, what you wrote is correct. I understand the subject you are marking attention to. Thank you for mentioning this issue to have the opportunity to think in detail about this subject. 

If you allow me, I will ask you some questions. On this occasion, we can perhaps better see whether the two compared situations are indeed comparable on the same scales. At the same time, I will give clear samples here over VMS to make this subject more understandable. 

Do you think that the abundance of agglutinative/Turkish word affixes and PIE languages can be compared in this issue? Do you think that the frequency or numerical variation of the word-affixes in a language (with an agglutinative structure) can be compared with languages such as English or German? In my previous comment, I explained the example I mentioned specifically for the question you asked about a single word suffix (-SAM / SAM (sağn) and the various variation readings I gave as an example). However, do not think that there is no similar situation in most of the other word affixes in terms of usage-variety in Turkish. 

So you are saying there are also word-affixes in English can be seen as a word. I say that Turkish is a language built only on variations of combinations of connected-words and word affixes. So it's an agglutinative language. How can we compare? I don't think it makes sense to say that like "this is exist in English or German too". Of course there is. There are word affixes in both languages. But one is structurally based entirely on linking word-affixes and full of connected-root words and suffixes.

For example, I can take the suffix -SAĞN (sağın) at the end of the word YARARSAĞN (which is the first word of f-33v) and I can use it to create as the repeating words like 'SAĞN SAĞN' and which is working in Turkish {for example this example can be seen as SAĞN SAĞN (or SAM SAM) in the 2th line of f-100r in VMS}, 
likewise, can you make same think in English and use '-ing' suffix as like 'ing ing' in English? Does it make sense? I know it makes no sense to ask this question. However, if you apply specific examples to both languages you compare, the result may be more enlightening.

Please feel free to make same think in English with using any word suffixes. After than, I can give more similar examples from Turkish and from VMS, after than may be you want to continue to give more similar examples from English again.  At the end, let's see in which language variety of samples will be match with the VMS? 

It doesn't matter if something is available in both languages. However, frequency of use and numerical diversity are also expected to overlap.

If so, please I expect you to give a similar example right now. Please show me the English 'ing ing' repetition or any word-suffix repetition since time when English language known existed in History.

Anyway, I appreciate your questioning effort. Because the subject will be more understandable if we can discuss on some specific issues, as we did here, through examples. For this reason, thank you for your comment and for your attention about this issue.

Best regards,

(07-08-2020, 09:30 AM)Pepper Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-08-2020, 12:00 AM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In other words, this alphabet is the situation specific alphabet to created only for VMS, which has been created with consisting of both the syllabic alphabet, the simple alphabet and the tamga-scripts and the numbers. For this reason, now we are reading a simple word in very different ways.

This does worry me, because it gives you so much freedom in translating each sentence. If your first interpretation doesn't make sense you can just go down the list until you find an interpretation that fits. If you gave your translation system to someone knowledgeable in Old Turkish and they translated a page, they could come out with a completely different translation to you and your sons. So how can your claim ever be tested?

That is exactly the point. It is the same with Gerard Cheshire's theory and so many other translation theories. The degrees of freedom in interpretation of a given portion of text means that one can inevitably find a translation which very loosely fits the context of the drawings albeit often without any grammar. I think it was referred to this kind of approach to the translation generating a "word salad" of text which the author can interpret as he/she sees fit.

(07-08-2020, 02:33 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That is exactly the point. It is the same with Gerard Cheshire's theory and so many other translation theories. The degrees of freedom in interpretation of a given portion of text means that one can inevitably find a translation which very loosely fits the context of the drawings albeit often without any grammar. I think it was referred to this kind of approach to the translation generating a "word salad" of text which the author can interpret as he/she sees fit.

Indeed. From what I understand so far, the Ardics have the following degrees of freedom:

1. The author used multiple dialects, so a word can be translated into any of half a dozen forms
2. As shown in the YouTube video, one glyph can have 7+ sounds assigned to it
3. The author used "poetic" language that is "rhythmically matching" along with some kind of very clever word play
4. The author encoded information in an acrostic down the first line of every page
5. The author also used some Latin / Greek / other words

Seems to me if you take a five-glyph vord you could easily find 50+ interpretations from which you can choose to construct your sentence.

For example, Ahmet, you claim that the first word on the eighth line of f4r is "baby pomegranate." Why does the author write about baby pomegranates on f1v, f2r, f3r, and so many others? I believe your answer will be that the vord means baby pomegranate on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and something else on those other pages. Probably a different meaning on each page. This isn't an isolated case; the text is full of repetition. I don't find your explanations of homophones, roots/suffixes, and the author's incredible linguistic prowess to be satisfactory - even when we take them all together.

I also find it very difficult to believe that this author wrote, in an invented script, a 200-page manuscript that 

a) includes acrostic codes
b) is poetic and rhythmically matching
c) makes grammatical sense, both in the acrostic code and in the filler text
d) does all this in two distinct 'languages', Currier A and B

I'm a published fiction author, and I write and edit nonfiction as a profession, in one of the world's most flexible languages - English. And I know I couldn't do what the Ardics claim this mysterious author has done. Not a chance. I could perhaps do a page with a lot of hard work, but 200? No.

(07-08-2020, 03:02 PM)Pepper Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Indeed. From what I understand so far, the Ardics have the following degrees of freedom:

1. The author used multiple dialects, so a word can be translated into any of half a dozen forms
2. One glyph can have 7+ sounds assigned to it
3. The author used "poetic" language that is "rhythmically matching" along with some kind of very clever word play
4. The author encoded information in an acrostic down the first line of every page
5. The author also used some Latin / Greek / other words

Seems to me if you take a five-glyph vord you could easily find 50+ interpretations from which you can choose to construct your sentence.

I think numbers 1, 2, 3, 5 could be said to essentially apply to Gerard Cheshire's theory. (Number 4 does not apply)

Cheshire's proto-romance theory draws on many European languages and non-European languages, that may not necessarily be romance languages, so point 1 applies; this is the most important parallel. In Cheshire's theory I believe that some Glyphs can have more than one sound, point 2. "Word salad" grammar free sentences, which can be interpreted in many ways, I think this is similar to point 3. Point 5 is in Cheshire's theory akin to point 1.

And your conclusion about the degrees of freedom in interpretation of a word also implies.

One thing I don't know if Ardic like Cheshire ignores spaces or places spaces where he sees fit.

I haven't studied lots of Voynich translation theories, so I am unable to comment on which other theories have the same problems, but my impression is that many have these kind of problems, where the degrees of freedom necessarily make it possible to construct many different translations from the text of the Voynich. Of course these multiple translations make it a very slow process for the decipherer to select their preferred translation, which they think best fits the imagery.

(07-08-2020, 09:30 AM)Pepper Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-08-2020, 12:00 AM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In other words, this alphabet is the situation specific alphabet to created only for VMS, which has been created with consisting of both the syllabic alphabet, the simple alphabet and the tamga-scripts and the numbers. For this reason, now we are reading a simple word in very different ways.

This does worry me, because it gives you so much freedom in translating each sentence. If your first interpretation doesn't make sense you can just go down the list until you find an interpretation that fits. If you gave your translation system to someone knowledgeable in Old Turkish and they translated a page, they could come out with a completely different translation to you and your sons. So how can your claim ever be tested?

Hi Pepper,

Thank you for paying attention to this detail. Your concern is understandable.

1-) You say that;  "If you gave your translation system to someone knowledgeable in Old Turkish and they translated a page, they could come out with a completely different translation to you and your sons. So how can your claim ever be tested?"
In other words;
If someone who knows Old-Turkish does what you say, that will mean he/she will have already confirmed that the VMS was written in Turkish. Is not it? 
So, even if any person does not translate it as like as same our translation, he/she will have approved our claim about that VMS written in Turkish language. In this case, can I say that you have accepted the Turkish content of VMS?

2-) This type of alphabet, where a single sign is mapped to multiple voices, is not a VMS-only case. There are other similar examples in Old Turkish.
As you think, a multiple-choice situation does not exist in every sentence in VMS. This is the case with some words in certain sentences. 

If you remember, I have given translation information about the single sentence in f-65r before on this page. For example, on this sentence, there is no argument that you mentioned in any word. It is clearly Turkish and there is no discussion for this sentence.

I was discussed about many VMS sentences with a group of linguists. We discussed about some particular words in particular sentences, and different ideas were made about 'how to read some particular single word in our translation, and also the discussion was about their past meaning content'. However, in most that kind of particular word example, the linguists could not agree among themselves either. 
As you know, putting forward different ideas contributes to have healthy results. And of course, we do not know these issues better than all linguists. This type of discussion is normal. Please note that such discussions do not apply to every sentence found in VMS, but some sentences will of course be discussed. 

As you know, some linguists still interpret differently that some sentence written by William Shakespeare too (which texts younger than VMS text in time). So, discussions on various ancient inscriptions of European languages are currently continuing, why do you expect from us to give you all an indisputable result on VMS?  

3-) You know that, studies on VMS have been continuing about for last 100 years. A single clear and indisputable sentence was not read in any language. We read this word (SAM/SAĞN) in different ways according to ATA transcription. But at the same time, we showed that all the different readings have their matching counterparts in Turkish. We show all of the multiple options that suit. That is, if a word is read differently than at once, we find all these readings in dictionaries and show them. 

As I said, this issue does not apply to every word written in VMS. However, some words can be read in a different way and all of these pronunciation variants are also in Turkish. Do you think such a situation could be a coincidence? Of course not. For this reason, we claim that the author of VMS deliberately made this alphabet in this way. This is exactly what the author were wanted. 

Perhaps, this kind of writing style was seen as a situation that probably was pointing about human intelligence during the author's lifetime. For this reason, I think that the author both proved his intelligence to certain special readers and made the MS fun to read.

4-) Remember, a single sentence in VMS could not been clearly determined in any language until now. However, please aware that we are currently in a position to discuss about which spelling or meaning of Turkish words can be choose for translation. So, at this point we no longer discuss whether VMS is Turkish. 

You argue that we chose a particular word in a particular sentence but why we didn't choose the other alternative. The answer is simple. When reading the Turkish sentence, the brain automatically distinguishes which words will meet the sentence integrity. May be this is the case for most language for sure, but in Turkish, the human brain scans more options and chooses the appropriate one.

5-) Although this seems to create a free space for us to create anagrams, why that all these alternative reading of same words (SAM / SAĞN) are match with Turkish. Could this be a coincidence? 
If any person from this group want to create such similar coincidence anagram works (with multiple similar matching options), please feel free to do same thing in your native language and please show us the examples in 600+ words and read many full sentences and indicate that 71+ illustration matching words. In addition 21% of them must be never change phonetically in last 600 years. Moreover, while trying that kind of anagram, please show that the words you read are found in dictionaries in your native language, just as we did.

So these are the clear answers to this question. Moreover, our claim has already been confirmed by some linguists.
Although they examined our claims, nobody said that VMS was not written in Turkish. And there is no linguist yet who has been able to refute our claims. 

Best regards,

(07-08-2020, 04:59 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If someone who knows Old-Turkish does what you say, that will mean he/she will have already confirmed that the VMS was written in Turkish. Is not it?
So, even if any person does not translate it as like as same our translation, he/she will have approved our claim about that VMS written in Turkish language. In this case, can I say that you have accepted the Turkish content of VMS?

Dear Ahmet

I think you miss that people are exploring your hypothesis that the manuscript is written in old Turkish and what the logical consequences of your hypothesis are. That doesn't mean that they necessarily agree with your hypothesis just that to analyse that hypothesis they have to consider the implication of it being true.

I would argue that the methodology you apply could also be applied to many languages as other flawed theories are. When you give individual words many interpretations then it is easy to find an interpretation that appears to fit. This is just the same as Gerard Cheshire's theory.

Proving any Voynich translation theory is wrong is hard, the onus is on you to prove it is correct. It is true that people can demonstrate that an argument presented to show that the theory is correct, is flawed. Prove Gerard Cheshire's theory is wrong or the Hannig theory or the many other theories. The problem with these theories is that the arguments presented that they are correct are weak.

Best Wishes

(07-08-2020, 04:59 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1-) You say that;  "If you gave your translation system to someone knowledgeable in Old Turkish and they translated a page, they could come out with a completely different translation to you and your sons. So how can your claim ever be tested?"
In other words;
If someone who knows Old-Turkish does what you say, that will mean he/she will have already confirmed that the VMS was written in Turkish. Is not it? 
So, even if any person does not translate it as like as same our translation, he/she will have approved our claim about that VMS written in Turkish language. In this case, can I say that you have accepted the Turkish content of VMS?

Of course not. People have "translated" the VMS in the way you have into Ukrainian, Hebrew, Latin, 'Proto-Romance' and a whole bunch of other languages. All of their claims were subjected to the same scrutiny yours is getting, and none of them held up. Therefore I do not accept any claims made so far.

Quote:2-) This type of alphabet, where a single sign is mapped to multiple voices, is not a VMS-only case. There are other similar examples in Old Turkish.
As you think, a multiple-choice situation does not exist in every sentence in VMS. This is the case with some words in certain sentences. 

If you remember, I have given translation information about the single sentence in f-65r before on this page. For example, on this sentence, there is no argument that you mentioned in any word. It is clearly Turkish and there is no discussion for this sentence.

Please stop trying to manipulate people's words to suggest they agree with you. Quite frankly, you seem like an intelligent and nice man and this kind of thing - which you have done several times here and elsewhere - is beneath you. I think it's quite clear I don't believe the manuscript is in Turkish, so please don't put words into my mouth again.

Quote:I was discussed about many VMS sentences with a group of linguists. We discussed about some particular words in particular sentences, and different ideas were made about 'how to read some particular single word in our translation, and also the discussion was about their past meaning content'. However, in most that kind of particular word example, the linguists could not agree among themselves eithe.

That's very concerning, and rather undermines your claim below that your theory has been "confirmed by some linguists." Does that hold any weight when others can't repeat your method? At best, your support is cancelled out by the non-support.

Quote:As you know, some linguists still interpret differently that some sentence written by William Shakespeare too (which texts younger than VMS text in time). So, discussions on various ancient inscriptions of European languages are currently continuing, why do you expect from us to give you all an indisputable result on VMS?

If the VMS is ever decoded/translated I'm sure there will be parts that will remain obscure or at least unclear. But the real translation/decoding will be repeatable and widely accepted among experts in the applicable fields. You haven't published your full method yet but the problems I'm raising here suggest your method is not repeatable and is not widely accepted even among people who are privy to the full details. This is why we're asking you questions and then following up on your responses.

Quote:3-) You know that, studies on VMS have been continuing about for last 100 years. A single clear and indisputable sentence was not read in any language. We read this word (SAM/SAĞN) in different ways according to ATA transcription. But at the same time, we showed that all the different readings have their matching counterparts in Turkish. We show all of the multiple options that suit. That is, if a word is read differently than at once, we find all these readings in dictionaries and show them

Well, the thing is, several other people would claim that they have translated many "clear and indisputable sentences." They're all wrong, but they believe in their translations just as you do. And me and others (like Mark) are seeing similarities in their claims and yours, though I also think yours has more merit than previous claims in some areas.  

Quote:As I said, this issue does not apply to every word written in VMS. However, some words can be read in a different way and all of these pronunciation variants are also in Turkish. Do you think such a situation could be a coincidence? Of course not. For this reason, we claim that the author of VMS deliberately made this alphabet in this way. This is exactly what the author were wanted.

I don't think it's a coincidence, but I think your method includes this multi-layered alphabet because it has to; if you don't give yourself so much freedom, your translations don't work. At the same time, real language doesn't work like that - it has to be mostly unambiguous and repeatable because it's meant for two-way communication, where the reader must understand what the author intended. If there are too many degrees of freedom, a language becomes meaningless. 

Quote:5-) Although this seems to create a free space for us to create anagrams, why that all these alternative reading of same words (SAM / SAĞN) are match with Turkish. Could this be a coincidence?

It's not coincidence; it's a fundamental element of your proposed solution that you need a lot of freedom with each glyph and vord. I don't think the correct solution will feature that element to the extent you describe.

Quote:If any person from this group want to create such similar coincidence anagram works (with multiple similar matching options), please feel free to do same thing in your native language and please show us the examples in 600+ words and read many full sentences and indicate that 71+ illustration matching words. In addition 21% of them must be never change phonetically in last 600 years. Moreover, while trying that kind of anagram, please show that the words you read are found in dictionaries in your native language, just as we did.

As I've already said, I'm a professional writer and I couldn't do what you're proposing this person/s did in the 15th century, without the benefits of word processors.

(07-08-2020, 04:59 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So these are the clear answers to this question. Moreover, our claim has already been confirmed by some linguists.
Although they examined our claims, nobody said that VMS was not written in Turkish. And there is no linguist yet who has been able to refute our claims. 

Best regards,

I really hope that your theory can bring us closer to the truth, but it is in my opinion a big mistake to switch the burden of proof. Your theory should not rest on the fact that no linguist have refuted your claims. 

Just to illustrate my point: I could come up with a theory that an invisible pink unicorn wrote the Voynich Manuscript, and no one would be able to disprove that either.