The Voynich Ninja

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

I suspect the issue of "too many degrees of freedom" probably lies behind all failed translations.

If you look at the Greg Kondrak decipherment one clear degree of freedom was that each vord was an anagram in his theory, I believe. So I guess different people can find their degrees of freedom in different places, but unless it is the correct decipherment those degrees of freedom have to be found somewhere to allow for the flexibility to produce a text which seems to fit the context of the drawings. I imagine that these theorists don't realise that the degrees of freedom in their theory inevitably allow them to produce a very roughly plausible text, so whilst it may look like they have deciphered it they have really just made something fit.

(07-08-2020, 03:02 PM)Pepper Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(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.

Hi,

Let talk about on the specific example.

If you see our work as a kind of interpretation, what is your opinion about our translation work on f-65r in VMS?

There is only 3 words in page f-65r and for sure it is a sentences.
Which part of our reading can be call as interpretation in this sentence read work?

There is 3 words in this page, one of them only has 1 sound drop and 1 sound change (OIYAK became AYAK) in time. (OI became A only > Phonetically, it is still the closest to each other, and no linguist can read this word differently than our reading. In the past 600 years, it has experienced a very small sound change and there are many similar phonetic change examples in Old Turkish.)
And other 2 words never change in phonetic value in last 600 years and we already share that dictionary links for those words.

The sentence was written as OIYAK SAK APAK, which is today as AYAK SAK APAK.

AYAK (foot, leg, stand, hoof)  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
and
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
and
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

SAK [see this section in the page: (II) is. (sa:k) bit. b. esk. Sap.] (stalk, handle, stem, shank, grip, shaft) You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

APAK [See: Tombul, gürbüz, sevimli in the link-page] > (plump, robust, cute ) > You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

600 years old: OIYAK SAK APAK
Written today as: AYAK SAK APAK

which with direct (1/1) translation:
Foot stalk plump, robush, cute 

Wich translation in normal way is:
The foot stalk is plump, robush, cute

Our interpretation is only that; "the author calls "foot stalk" for "root of the plant".

What part of this translation would be considered as interpretation?
"The author calls "foot stalk" for "root of the plant" part is our  interpretation only.

In that case, just accept the dictionary's equivalent of 1/1 words and forget about our interpretation.
Which is "Foot stalk plump, robush, cute" with zero interpretation. Which reading is only based on the dictionaries.

By the way, please note that, linguists are already 100% agreed with our statement for this sentence and nobody read it in different way yet.

To call this type of reading as an anagram or an interpretation, one must be completely away from linguistics.

This reading is one of the clearest readings made in VMS and there is many more.

The words are not changed in last 600 years and those are still shown in dictionaries today.

I don't know what can be said to those who call "interpretation" to this type of reading.

With all due respect, this type of reading is purely scientific and the evidence is there. Evidence cannot be challenged. Linguistics have read thousands of ancient texts in same way with using same methods since from very long time. If our reading will be interpreted as interpretation. More than a million articles written in academies will need to be officially announced as garbage.

1. The author used only one dialects in this sentence, so a word can not be translated into any of half a dozen forms for sure.
2. After our YouTube video, the paired phonetic matches have been simplified a little more. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
And sound matches for syllabic characters will be simpler in reading progress for sure. 
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
This is a case for our study method and is explained in our study papers. 
3. But there is a much more important detail. Between 1951 and 1956 scholars claimed to have read the Hittite scripts/texts. They also published their articles. In these readings, 1 word of the Hittites was paired with 5 different sound values. And it was scientifically accepted. The same situation exists in Egyptian hieroglyph readings. The same was done with transcriptional translations of many ancient texts (which were officially announced as 'reading have done'). In this case, you criticize us for doing what scientists do. So you have to declare that Hittite readings, Egyptian readings, and others are also garbage. Because they all pared one sing with more than one phonetic value. 
4. The multiple sound equivalents you mentioned are mostly valid for syllabic signs, and we will simplify them just like simple alphabet characters in the next period and we will have read more than 1000 words and 300 sentences in the near future for sure (in one or two years may be unless we have any problems like health issues). The biggest problem is that I'm not doing this VMS studies as a job. And this is not my only hobby too. We have to do this job in our free time. Otherwise we would have been read much more full pages.

You said that; "Why does the author write about baby pomegranates on f1v, f2r, f3r, and so many others?"

The answer could be one of this in general in other cases;
1- We know that The author is grafting (combining or fixing two different plant together/bud/instilled/) the plants and attempting to combine some species. (we know that from our readings)
2- You cannot evaluate these words in this way. Because many words in Turkish have more than one meaning. Therefore, everything will be revealed when sentence solutions are completed. Today we are at a very early stage. We need more free time to work on VMS or we need to find other Turkish VMS readers to speed up the reading process on the MS. We are already working on these issues.
3- Why should the author not use the word 'baby pomegranate' on more than one page? But if a time machine is built, you won't have to go and ask because these will be explained with more sentence analysis. So, no need to have time machine any more to visit VMS author to ask this.
4- For example, in f-2r this word is written with the 2 other words as ÇNOR, ÇULU, ŞAMU. I explained the word ÇNOR. I'm not writing here again. The two words next to it are ÇULU and ŞAMU. The sound of -U at the end of these two are suffixes.

“-Ü/-U” and “-İ/-I”: these are an Object Pointer Suffixes (Turkish Direct Object Suffix (accusative) such as “the” in English). (Clauson, Guise) 

So, it means you can see these words in root form in dictionaries.
ÇUL (gunny, sack, bag, poke): You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
ŞAM (candle, wax): You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

ÇNOR ÇULU ŞAMU =
The Baby pomegranate gunny candle
or
The Baby pomegranate bag wax

So these three words together are an adjective. An analogy is made using this adjective. She/He mentioned a certain part of the plant drawn on this page has been identified with using this adjective in this text.

... etc ...

I don't know what kind of article you have written on which topic before. However, these works are not interpreted with feelings and/or personal opinions. No solution can be found if the solution will not met with mathematics, and linguistic-knowledge.

You also said that; "Seems to me if you take a five-glyph word you could easily find 50+ interpretations from which you can choose to construct your sentence."
If it's that easy, use the same method yourself and read as many words and overlapping sentences in English as we did in VMS. Let's see is it true what you said or do you have difficulty for evaluating some details in linguistic?

You don't find my explanations of homophones, roots/suffixes, and the author's incredible linguistic prowess to be satisfactory etc. just because you don't know Turkish. If the VMS was in Japanese or Chinese or any other language, I could be where you are today.

For anyone to say I have read any ancient text, they must meet the following criteria:

1- An alphabet transcription mapping that is useful for reading a large number of words needs to be done. (All the transcriptions made, including EVA, were wrong, so it didn't work. We did ATA transcription and read hundreds of words.)
2- Phonetic and syntactic overlaps should be seen in the syntax of words and sentences should give meaningful results.
3- The linguistic structures of the languages compared must be overlapping. For example, word suffixes of the past language should be seen in the other old texts, etc.
4- With the given transcription, other texts written in the same language and same alphabet should be read in same way and everyone should be able to make these readings using the same alphabet transcription.
5- When paragraphs and pages are read, meaningful texts that maintain the integrity of meaning and that are clearly understood to be the continuation of a certain subject should be able to be translated.
6- The root meanings or the whole of the words read should be shown in dictionaries or the meaning content should be proven with linguistic methods. If this cannot be done, the predictions that can be made should not break the sentence integrity. If any word is interpreted as a guess, this should be noted in translations. All translated words should be shown in dictionaries and word-suffixes should be explained.
7- There must be overlapping with historical and time-related realities.

We think that our work meet all these 7 criteria with our work and this will be understood in time. However, despite this, VMS reading is not complete. We are talking about an ongoing work at the moment. We are making new progress every week, and all of these are in a positive way.

Thanks,

Ahmet Ardıç

(07-08-2020, 12:43 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: 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. 

For those who are interested in seeing examples of Tamga scripts, here is an article and some examples.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

It is a somewhat pictographic script that includes characters similar to some of the very early Asian scripts. There are also quite a few circle-line characters.

Thank you for the information you share 
You can also find additional information about Tamgas in these links too.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

In Turkish, do the phrases "the baby pomegranate gunny candle" and "the foot stalk is plump, robust, cute" make sense as something one would naturally write and which a reader would easily understand? Because in direct translation they look like word salad. 

For me to say the manuscript has been solved, my basic criteria would be:

1) Other experts in the language (the medieval version) can use the method to translate a page independently and come up with roughly the same translation, allowing for reasonable variation because the manuscript is old and language is fluid. I.e. the results are repeatable.
2) The text makes grammatical sense without the translator having to explain that it makes sense if you kind of squint at it and give the author leeway for being poetic or being constricted by an acrostic.

Until you publish your full method and translation it isn't possible to say whether these criteria have been met. I would very much like them to be, because I want to read this damn manuscript (in modern English) before I die. 

I will say that when you publish your findings, people much more knowledgeable and clever than me are going to ask you much more informed and clever questions. I would suggest you don't accuse them of being emotional, racist, Euro-centric, or try to twist their words to say they must agree with you. Science, as you say, should be about the facts and the evidence.

(07-08-2020, 03:45 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(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.

I think that there is a detail that most of the people misjudge.
The author used of multiple dialects never give us an area for translations. It doesn't give us much room to move. On the contrary, it makes our work difficult for sure. For example, the word AY /month, moon) in some dialects can be voiced as OY in another, as OI or AIY etc. There are no big distances between them in terms of sound value. On the contrary, they have close sound values. In addition they all have the same meaning content. So this does not give us much room for movement. In fact, there are similar situations in every language. We cannot avoid them, but we must take them into account.

Thanks,

(07-08-2020, 06:04 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(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

Dear Mark,

We think in much the same way, and of course, discussions can be continued on the ideas with which we differ, through mutual specific examples.

But as far as linguistics is concerned, I must say that in such cases the main confirmatory mathematical probability calculus itself. 

If you read up to 600 agglutinative words with using alphabet transcription of 24 simple alphabet characters (+ 90 syllable characters) by using them to translate some whole pages in semantic integrity in large number of sentences, it is no longer necessary to verify that theory by any linguist. 

However, there are linguists who have already approved our thesis. For some another linguists, understanding these issues may be take some time. Which is understandable. And of course we are in no hurry. We do this job to make use of our free time in fun. 

Thank you,

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

(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.

Thank you for your comments. Of course I would like to benefit from different ideas an suggestions. That's why I find all the comments constructive.

I think I am not manipulate people and I am not suggest they agree with me. They will agree or not I am informing about some linguistic realities only. So much so that I am sorry if I make the impression that I am manipulating those who read my comments here.

If what I wrote does not concern those who read these comments, I will not enter this page again when I will receive the first warning from this page admin. However, my result about VMS will not change. 

It is essential to conduct discussions in the linguistic area. For this reason, I was gave specific examples. For example, I gave clear examples of multiple repetitions of the same words. However, there was no clear return about that but no problem. If we cannot proceed with specific examples of why the VMS may or may not be Turkish, there is of course no purpose left for me to comment and share my findings here. 

Saying that "confirmed by some linguists" not mean other linguists was denied our findings and/or theory. I have share and published my full method in Turkish with many linguist. I sent the method and findings in Turkish by mail to many linguists and there was no positive or negative feedback from them. They probably have no idea about VMS and  they may probably be trashing the file without opening it.

You are telling me about other people's claims and articles about VMS, but I have to tell you to know that I have read all of these. I will not make a specific comment on any of these. Of course, every claimant thinks their opinion is correct. But apart from opinions, it is necessary to get support from clear findings.

Of course, there are not two different correct solutions in a matter. There is a situation like the unknowns equation in mathematics. And there is only one correct answer. There is only one correct solution for VMS too.

Thanks,

(07-08-2020, 07:20 PM)joben Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(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.

I have no objection to your logical comment. You are right about that. It is our findings and our own study will validate our theory. Which findings and study we are already sharing with others. 
Thanks,

(07-08-2020, 09:50 PM)Pepper Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In Turkish, do the phrases "the baby pomegranate gunny candle" and "the foot stalk is plump, robust, cute" make sense as something one would naturally write and which a reader would easily understand? Because in direct translation they look like word salad. 

For me to say the manuscript has been solved, my basic criteria would be:

1) Other experts in the language (the medieval version) can use the method to translate a page independently and come up with roughly the same translation, allowing for reasonable variation because the manuscript is old and language is fluid. I.e. the results are repeatable.
2) The text makes grammatical sense without the translator having to explain that it makes sense if you kind of squint at it and give the author leeway for being poetic or being constricted by an acrostic.

Until you publish your full method and translation it isn't possible to say whether these criteria have been met. I would very much like them to be, because I want to read this damn manuscript (in modern English) before I die. 

I will say that when you publish your findings, people much more knowledgeable and clever than me are going to ask you much more informed and clever questions. I would suggest you don't accuse them of being emotional, racist, Euro-centric, or try to twist their words to say they must agree with you. Science, as you say, should be about the facts and the evidence.

Hi Pepper,

When I do not translate directly (1/1), what I wrote to you seems to be my personal comments. The reason I translate directly is because you can see that the sentence is linked to the drawing on the page and the words have meanings. The direct translation is: "The roots are cute." and/or "The roots are fat."

But none of these words in Turkish alone mean root. But when both of these two words (AYAK SAPI) combine, it becomes an adjective that refers to the roots of the plant. Therefore, translation of a Turkish text into other languages is also a matter of expertise.

I don't need to comment on your other comment because I already shared my opinion on these issues.

Thanks for your comment,

Translations have to be evaluated in two ways.

• First you look at the translation and ask yourself, "Does this make sense?"
  
• Second you have to ask yourself, "Would they normally write it this way?"
  

For example, in English, you could say, "Keep you tomorrow health best," and everyone would understand it, but no one says it that way. They would normally say, "Take care," or "Be well," "Gesundheit," or "Watch out for your health," or a few other common phrases. No one would say, "Keep you tomorrow health best."

So... there is text that is understandable in a rough way. And there is text that is normal and conventional.

Some of the solutions proposed so far (in a variety of languages) have bits and pieces that seem understandable, but they are not normal phrases for the Middle Ages.


If it is understandable, but seems a bit odd AND the translation method has a lot of degrees of freedom, then you have to ask yourself if the degrees of freedom are resulting in a subjective "solution". Normally degrees of freedom make it easier to write something that is traditional and normal and yet, in the case of many VMS "solutions", this is not what happens. Even with all this freedom, translations are still grammatically odd or the grammar is nonexistent.