[quote="cvetkakocj@rogers.com" pid='47451' dateline='1633273349']
Hello,
Thank you for your question.
When I opened the link you shared, I did not see an alphabet transcription file there. But it's possible that someone else may be shared our ATA alphabet transcription on one of the pages of that site you shared. For some reason, people do this without the need for permission. As far as I know, there have been some people who have made ascription of the Voynich alphabet, such as the Hebrew alphabet, the Georgian alphabet, the European alphabet, without any scientific explanation. Among them were academics.
In particular, it has been seen many times in the so-called "scientific" articles that European academics create new terminology and concepts and create perceptions by producing names as they wish, or expressing what is in their subconscious. When such definitions are made by Europeans, there is no objection for some reason.
"This (VM) is a new alphabet that created to encode certain information in the texts, and which has consists some of the Latin & Runic alphabet characters, numbers and tamga signs with their creating combined syllable letter characters to write for one or a few special reader."
When looking at unknown parts of history, European scientists wear glasses that constantly give them an Indo-European-centric view. For this reason, they produce so-called scientific articles, especially in the field of language and history, as they wish. But I will not mention them here. I also write articles on these topics. If their English is corrected when the time comes, I will share them. Anyone who wants to understand my detailed and grounded approach to these issues through my examples can find and read these articles.
If you want to see the ATA alphabet transcription, you can find it in the links below. You don't need to look for them elsewhere because we have not given anyone else the right to publish them without our written permission.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
I hope I did not misunderstand your question, but let me answer your question with a question. The acronym "European Voynich Alphabet" EVA has been used repeatedly in many purported academic articles. Don't you think this was a misinformation made to the subconscious of the reader? In other words, on what scientific basis were the unreadable texts written in an unprecedented alphabet being described as "European"? Where is proof that the VM alphabet is European? In my opinion, using this term in a scientific article should be considered a baseless reader-conditioning refferal only. In other words, the term EVA cannot have a place in a scientific publication. But it has been used many times.
We use the abbreviation ATA for our transcription. This means "ATA TEAM ALBERTA". So it means like "ATA (father/ancestors) -working- Team Alberta". In fact, we can call this alphabet the "600-year-old Turkish alphabet" with the large number of words we read. So we have the right to do that after our early study results. If you want to read our long article below, maybe you will understand why.
Can you hear when math shouting?
Probability of writing the first 2 letters of "
ŞAILAK" correctly is
1 in 900 (30 × 30) with the letters that will be chosen randomly from a 30-letter of base alphabet. In the VM alphabet that we have considered, multiple syllable combinations such as double, triple and quadruple are used with tamga/mark characters with together of sound values of numbers from 1 to 9. Even if we accept this each combination characters as simple/single-sound signs, we can talk about a writing system with more than 140 alphabet characters. Probably this number will exceed 180 when we check all typing letters in VM pages in the future. This means that our probability of randomly choosing first 2 letter (even the first two letters of any word) is 1 in 180x180, (
that is, a probability of 1 in 32400) to match with any known word in any language. In this respect, the fact that we have made an alphabet transcription puts us in the field where it is necessary to read with a certain sound discipline. It is difficult to talk about coincidences in this field after reading first single full sentence in Turkish structure for sure.
In my understanding, "a theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world and that has been constructed by capable of solid foundations with using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses".
Especially if any theory can hold his back on mathematical formulas, it means that presented theory declares results that are realistic or coincide with reality.
Some theories are only approved by the science of mathematics itself, and it is unnecessary to seek further confirmation from academies. Of course, such theories can be revised again and again to see if the evidence and findings are realistic and accurate.
Theories are not announced after all academies or academics have accepted or approved them. When observation, examination and findings are explained with scientific methods, the owner of the theory can present it. So we don't need someone's approval to come up with a theory. If theories were explanations that can only be put forward after a university has approved them, they would not be called theories, but simply "declaring proven results".
When Einstein put forward his theory about relativity, there was no any first degree experimental evidence to prove this theory at that moment, nor was there an academy that initially approved this theory to publish it. Can we say, this theory could be approved only after the scientific evidences of this theory were put forward after it was proved with first-degree findings whether they gave correct results as shown in the theory or not?
However, this did not prevent Einstein from putting forward his theories, of course. Einstein never give first-degree evidence or any test results, but he presented some kind of reasoned thinking method, past findings and personal thoughts by using logic, and even he showed them on some fictional level in to a certain extent.
When the written texts engraved on the rocks by the Hittite civilization were first read by transcription, it was claimed that there were 5 different spellings of a particular word with different meaning list for each spellings of a word. In other words, it was said that the same word can be read in 5 different phonetic way. Actually, this construction has been scientifically accepted by academies. According to my opinion (or any logical based transcription criteria), this cannot be scientific. Because there is no primary evidence for this type of "5 phonetic ways to read a single word" transcription reading of Hittite writings.
Moreover, these first texts belonging to the Hittites, which are said to be read, were created by bringing together tens of thousands of small pieces of stones and combining the spaces between the inscriptions by European so-called archaeologists who did not know the Hittite language. Moreover, the stones found were moved from several different excavation sites to a certain place and joined together. There were distances of more than five hundred meters or more than a kilometer between excavation sites. Moreover, the stones found were brought from excavations at different heights and different depths. Despite all this, when the texts could not be created, the stones in and on the side of the stream passing by the nearby village were moved to the merging point. The Hittite texts were still incomplete and these deficiencies were made up by the additions made to the texts by those who did not know this language. Then it was said that a word mentioned here could be read with 5 different sound values. Which there was no closeness between these sound values. Moreover, all of these have been published as scientific articles and are still being taught at universities. For this reason, it is not wise to learn the criteria about how to make an alphabet transcription from this Western Universities who read Hittite texts etc.
If any alphabet transcription that reads the largest number of words in VM texts that can be call "the most successful transcription" for sure. However, it should also be shown that meaningful sentences are formed with the words read.
In this sense, the theory we put forward is not even fictional. In many cases, we show only first-order evidence. For example, we showed 82 word-artifact overlaps in the VM manuscript. 72 of these words clearly present the overlapping of the sound value and semantic content of the word 600 years ago by referencing the dictionary pages. The remaining 10, although not seen in dictionaries before, are expressed by explaining the meanings of word attachments over the root meanings of word roots.
For example, we showed that the name of the plant, which the author wrote as "SAZAK" in 600 years ago, is still written as "SAZAK" in today. This is not a claim but this is a proven fact after ATA transcription we made. There is a working alphabet transcription in the middle and we read each word with by its sound values shown in the transcription. Moreover, we show these words in dictionaries too.
In order to be able to read a text written in a previously unreadable alphabet, it is necessary to transcribe it correctly. We find and display words that are read with the correct transcription in accepted dictionaries. Now look at the words we read on this page and in the few previous comments. Which all provide clear matching.
We used whatever methods linguistics used while doing similar studies.
In Turkish, some letters are never found at the beginning of a word. In addition, some letters are never found at the end of the word too. We wrote down which ones these are in our paper. The same structure exists in the VM texts and these were expressed by us.
This type of match is a structural match.
In the same way, there are double, triple, quartet and quintet word repetitions in this manuscript. That is, the same word is written side by side in more than one way. No similar situation has been recorded with equal intensity in any of the Old-Indo-European languages. But there are many recorded old-texts for it in old Turkish. For example, these were recorded in the "IRK BİTİG" manuscript in same way. This is also an example of structural overlap and presented by us.
Sound value overlap and closeness of words are shown and these words are also shown in existing dictionaries. For example, we showed the word OTACI, which means "pharmacist, doctor", in dictionaries. It has already been recorded by linguists that this word appears in written manuscripts before the year 900. We refer to all these sources. There is no finding that we rely on google translator here. We find and display these words in real and linguistically recognized dictionaries.
In this way, we showed 700 words, 100 sentences and 82 word-drawing matches. These numbers will increase for sure. Because the study shows the early findings of an ongoing process. These findings give us the right to present this theory. While there are so many clear findings and we are using the same methods by linguistics were used, it is no longer possible to argue the opposite of what we put forward or to say that there is no Turkish in VM texts.
The probability of correctly typing the first letter of the word "ŞAILAK" (şalak > cucumber) is 1 in 26, and the probability of writing the first 2 letters (ŞA-****) correctly is 1 in 676 (26 × 26) with the letters that will be chosen randomly from a 26-letter alphabet.
Thus, the probability of correctly writing 4 real words, consisting of 20 letters in total, with our 26-letter alphabet in the form of an ongoing index, using the random selection method; [
attachment=5894]
Moreover, I did not even take into account the possibility that these 4 words, consisting of a total of 20 characters, would form a logical sentence with their subject and predicate. Moreover, in our VM alphabet, more than 140 alphabet characters (+ numbers 1 to 9 with their phonetic values), including multi-syllable characters, and 700 words, 100 sentences (some of them 15 words), and 82 word-drawing matches were made. The person who would say that this happened by chance would have to have completely blocked the part of his/her brain related to mathematics.
For this reason, it is necessary to teach linguists only mathematics and logic in the first two years of university entrance. When they do not do this, they cannot think clearly. In a sense, I can say that they suffer from thought constipation because they cannot see how mathematics confirms a claim by reasoning. Fortunately, our thesis (or you can say allegation / it is okay) has not been and will not be able to refute scientifically yet.
So, the math itself confirms us. If math confirms it, it would be foolish to ask someone to approve it.
However, there were linguists who already approved our study verbally and in writing. No one has yet been able to refute our work scientifically too.
It's been almost 4 years since we put forward our findings. There is not a single fundamental and reasoned objection that could refute or nullify our work. In 2018, we sent our study to one Western University. When they decided "not to publish" our work after a long time, they also explained the reasons for this. When we looked at these reasons, we realized that they applied the particular sound value that we did not show in our alphabet transcription to a word we wrote and that they had inconsistent ideas about the Turkish language. I wrote a response letter to them at that time and I asked permission to publish their rejection reasons with together our article by showing them item by item their evaluation mistakes. They told us they didn't want us to publish their answers.
We demonstrate our own work on VM by using methods which used in linguistics, along with mathematical probabilities as well as primary proofs. All these and the probability results with formulas of mathematics have given us the right to publish our theory itself.
For example now, do you not accept that we show that the word SAZAK we read was written in the same way today and 600 years ago? Do you think that it is visually coincides with the plant drawing on the same page on which it was written?
So if you think like this, try to learn how many different plant species there are in the world in numbers. And write that this 5-letter word SAZAK came across by chance in a letter space by limited of 180 alphabet characters. So we showed the word SAZAK and say that is one of the clear match. Now people looking at this have 3 ways only. The first is to accept this reading, and the second is to say that it is a coincidence in the space of possibilities. The third way is to remain silent. Which way would you choose?
If you will not accept our clame, please you will have to explain us the reasons in scientifically way.
Honestly, I'm curious what you're going to say.
Forget 100 sentences, and 700 words, and 82 drawing-word matches. Please just say if the word
SAZAK matches with the drawing on the page and whether this word exists in Turkish or not.
If you want, you can look at the remaining 81 matches in turn, and in the next step, please you examine how we analyze the sentences.
The linguists who conducted this review confirmed the results of our study.
Not everyone has the knowledge to examine this Old Turkic related study. This is also normal. However, the fact that the other person's knowledge does not allow him to evaluate our work does not mean that we cannot publish our work.
This is the problem of those who cannot or do not want to see the evidence. Mathematics, on the other hand, will keep shouting results. Hearing ones hears, but who does not hear math shouting results will not hear for sure.
Thanks for reading and sorry for my broken English