There will be one more thing to consider when it comes time to apply linguistic statistics to ATA transcription.
Perhaps the very important point is, that the entropy does not depend on which alphabet is used, but only on the probabilities or frequencies. In this case this means, that the entropy of a text does not change if it is subject to a simple substitution encoding.
You can read the with EVA as DAIIN with the same phonetic value. But in ATA transcription, if we read this same word as like SAM, ŞEM, ŞAM in this case, their connected part of the text entropy will change because of its probabilities and frequencies change too. There are similar sound changes for other words too. I have explained this issue with reasons in detail in my previous statements.
If it is possible for the same spelled words to be read differently, this will happen for almost any word. For this reason, first of all, linguists should revise the writing style of 600 years ago in every line and make the text clear as sound value. I can partially do this myself. However, when multiple meanings of different pronunciations overlap with sentence integrity, it will be possible for me to determine more clearly which sound value should be taken in which sense, with the support of linguists.
The case of a word being read in more than one form is not a structure or formation that I have invented to create a wide reading area for myself in my transcription today. We know from ancient inscriptions and manuscripts that this was also seen in other Turkish language writing alphabets historically. There was also the case that some letters, such as A and E, were expressed with a single sign historically too.
However, if there are those who think that we have created a reading space for ourselves by using these sound equivalents, I should tell them that all the different pronunciations of the same word such as SEM, ŞEM, ŞAM have 1/1 equivalents in Turkish dictionaries.
You can't see 1/1-same situation of this in the same way in Indo-European languages. This situation made it easier for the author to make word games in sentences.
[How can the results of any analysis be correctly interpreted with so many possible variants? The answer is through demonstration. Does the output of the chosen methodology produce a reasonable and viable result? Does the translation make sense? And are the results independently reproduceable?
Choice of language is a choice of methodology. It is only one side of the investigative dichotomy. The other part is the 'subject of investigation'. And for the VMs, while statistics are potentially helpful, it is also necessary to look at specific segments of the VMs text.
In the VMs, perhaps it is possible to assign a certain special quality to the circular texts. It's the last place someone would attempt to interpret the written text. The plants, the recipes and all that is investigated first. Perhaps circular texts are significant in another way. Perhaps some of them have been selected. Some of them are clearly marked with "Stolfi's" markers. And one of the markers connects to historical heraldry despite some intentional ambiguity. There is a set of different structural affirmations that supports this interpretation.
Among the examples of circular text, there are those that are marked and therefore might be more significant than others. This is an area where more light needs to shine. If there is a need to demonstrate the validity of a particular methodology, let it at least take into consideration the self-designated, circular text segments that have the potential to produce more significant results.]
[/quote]
Dear R. Sale,
In circular texts, there are words that are easily read and clearly understood, just as in all other pages and in the same proportion. In these sections, the author has created sentences again. So the only difference is that he wrote the paragraphs around circular lines. For this reason, I do not think that circular texts are any different compared to others in the way that you can understand what language the content is in. But of course we have to read them as other pages.
The ATA transcription we have will allow for this. All we have to do is to understand the abbreviations that appear in each sentence with the help of linguists.
Also, if the author has added some names and names in European languages to these sentences, then European researchers may be helpful in finding non-Turkish words.
Thanks
Example of a New Drawing Word Match (folio 85 r - 86 v)
We've just (this morning) detected this overlap. This is the 93rd drawing and word match we detected. This number will certainly increase exponentially in the future.
It's a compound word. [attachment=6371] 2OZGZ / 2 OZ GZ
The word means "2 girls facing each other" (face to face or one in front of the other).
[attachment=6372] means "2 girls facing each other"
This compound word has the number 2 at the beginning. The middle word is the word OZ and the end is the word GZ.
The left start-section part is written as digits/numbers 2. Now notice the slight drawing difference between 2 and Z here. Normally, ATA has a letter-drawing-structure that can be compared to each other as letter R, Z and 2 in the alphabet. It is rather difficult to separate those with each other. Moreover, we can say that this manuscript was written by more than one person, but that one of them wrote only in the form of copying the firs texts written by the first author (the original author). Throughout this ninja page, I have mentioned in one of my previous comment which section has different hands.
Both of these (OZ & ÖZ) words have different meanings in Turkish.
Both the words ÖZ and OZ have not changed in terms of phonetic value in the 600 years that have passed since they were written. Moreover, qualifying the word as OZ or ÖZ will not make a difference that would disrupt the semantic integrity of the sentence in which this word is used.
In fact, it is not difficult to guess that these words can be used in different dialects with their phonetic value converted to each other. For this reason, even if we look at the semantic content of both separately, we should not think that it will make any sense just because of the sound transformations between dialects.
Because we may be studying the words of a dialect that we cannot define fully at the moment and whose analogue has probably not been recorded before. In this respect, the word expressed in the form of OZ in one dialect may also be expressed in the form of ÖZ in another dialect.
We still refer to the semantic contents found in the old dictionaries and today's dictionaries created accordingly by taking the dialects of Turkey Turkish as reference.
The word ÖZ as an adjective; It also means "own", "genuine", etc.
However, this word has some most commonly used meanings in the Turkish such as; "basic element of something" and "Blood connected/related (non-stepchildren)" are widely used.
If you read this word as 2 ÖZ GZ (2 ÖZ GIZ), then we understand it means as "two daughters/girls who born from the same mother".
In addition, the word 2 ÖZ GIZ has meanings such as "two friendly girls" too.
(ÖZ = from the same mother, friendly, intimate, cordial, genuine, candid, hearty, interior, heartfelt, genuine, deep. Etc)
But judging by the drawing on the page, the word OZ means "across / facing-across". (Such as "2 girls face to face each other" or "2 girls which front of or ahead another").
I have shown the dictionary pages of all the pronunciations of these words below.
Of course, almost all Turkish words have very rich meanings. But those who know this language will understand from sentence construction without confusing which meaning should be perceived.
According to the Etymology word of the Turkish language, the word ÖZ is mentioned in the texts of "Orkhon Inscriptions" in the Old Turkish period in 735.
This word is also mentioned in the manuscript "Divan-i Lugati't-Türk", which is a manuscript of 1073 and written by Kashgari.
Accordingly, we know clearly that this word was written in the same way it was written in 735, in 1073 and today (in 2022), without any phonetic value changes.
You can check the Etymology dictionary page of the Turkish language that we use as a source, from the page I shared here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
After these explanations, if we examine this word in a little more detail, we can write the following:
We can read this word in scroll number 85 r-86 v of the ATA manuscript (also called the Voynich manuscript). This word is written by the author in the format "2OZGZ". According to the ATA alphabet transcription, it can also be read like "2ÖZGZ".
Except for two words of the sentence in which this word is written, we read the others clearly. The help of linguists will be useful for words that are usually written in abbreviation form or written by splitting.
This word is formed by combining a number and two separate words that would not normally be expected to be combined with each other.
It is common in the whole of VM (ATA) writing that the words were written as separate words by dividing them into syllables, while they were supposed to be written separately but were combined or written adjacent. This may be due to the fact that the author wanted the texts to be difficult to read.
Accordingly, we can read this word as 2 OZ GZ or 2 ÖZ GZ.
Here, the word written in GZ form at the end is written in abbreviation form.
Or to put it another way, this word is written without vowels. A similar situation can be seen in many manuscripts in Old Turkish. In other words, being this type, we know very clearly in terms of written Turkish that the first word written without using vowels is not mentioned in this manuscript.
Anyone who speaks Turkish as a native language will read this word written in the form of GZ, mostly in the form of GIZ, following the sound harmony of the words before it. It is not possible to remove these two consonants from the mouth without putting a vowel in between.
This word was pronounced as KIZ in some dialects and as GIZ in some dialects in the Old Turkish period. In some local dialects, this word is also pronounced as GİZ.
Today, dialects pronouncing this word in all three ways still exist in Anatolia.
To see this, please see the source dictionaries we have shared here.
You can look up the meaning of the word GIZ in this dictionary page:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You can look up the meaning of the word GIRL on this dictionary page:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You can look up the meaning of the word GİZ on this dictionary page:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You can look up the meaning of the word ÖZ in this dictionary page:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You can also look up the meaning of the word OZ in this dictionary page: [attachment=6373]
OZ = Karşı karşıya = "face to face each other" and-or "front of or ahead another"
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Every word in Turkish has a root. These root words are usually monosyllabic. The meaning diversity of words expands depending on the root meaning. However, any addition to any root word cannot change the root word's semantic content.
If you want to look up the root meaning of the words OZ and ÖZ (or if you want to see the semantic content of any Turkish root word), the "Turkish Roots Dictionary" written by the linguist İsmet Zeki Eyüboğlu will be a good source of information.
Of course there are other sources as well. But don't get tired of look for these words on "google translate" because you can see their semantic content there partially, and real dictionaries have wider content.
See this "Turkish Roots Dictionary" source: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Some of what is shown as the meaning content of the word OZ in this dictionary are:
"OZ-, Antecedent voice A.
The word suffix denoting action is -mak.
Some meanings of the root word OZ: “to organize, to talk a lot, to tell a legend, to go ahead, to win in a race, to talk in vain, to put forward, to go forward.” Etc.
Here, the word OZ in particular has root meanings such as "to go forward", "to put forward", "to arrange", "to pass", "to go ahead (to get ahead)".
In this example, where we examine the content of "the face to face position", a drawing presents word overlap.
Many words in the Indo-European language also have more than one meaning. However, it is possible to see this event in a wider context in Turkish. Because the way the root words are born or created is often different. Based on this, meanings that seem contradictory or seem unrelated in any word are actually often born together in connection with each other.
If we give an example, it may be better understood why Turkish words can have very different meanings.
In order for you to understand this, you can visualize the imaginary example that I will talk about here now by empathizing. Although the evidence for when it first occurred is not in the hands of scientists, imagine the early days when the words of any language were born and humans began to speak.
Imagine the period when words in the language were just being born. Being in such a past tense, let's say you went into a cave for shelter on a rainy stormy day and we're looking outside from there. All of a sudden, a very powerful light appeared in the sky.
Then we heard a strong explosion sound. And then suppose we saw that lightning struck trees and deer, and perhaps a few of our close relatives, and that we saw them die or even burn with this blow. In that case, it is possible to interpret this event as a divine power.
In this case, everyone who witness this event at that moment is trying to imitate the sound made during the lightning strike as much as possible (as a reflection-sound (as a onomatopoetic words)) in order to remind each other of the event in the later time. Suppose this onomatopoetic imitation is made by witness with using the ÇAK (CHAK) sound.
Now this (ÇAK) is a root word. Can we just say that the meaning of this word means lightning only?
Everyone who witnessed the occurrence of the event will associate the phonetic value of that word every time this word is uttered after that day, by remembering every detail they have observed in the events experienced one by one.
In other words, the first people to use this word in the language will attribute all the events they observed to the lightning strike they witnessed by putting it into the meaning content.
So the word ÇAK for them is; shall mean "strong light, explosion, fire, smoke, flame, death, angle, burn, blow, arm of light, divine ray, divine punishment" etc.
Additions to this word in the future can only change this root meaning, but it does not destroy the root meaning content.
This is why the semantic content, which we see as unrelated today, occurs in languages based on root and word suffix relations.
In other words, this situation is not only valid for the Turkish language. But numerically, I can say that there are many more root words in this situation in Turkish. Of course, an onomatopoetic word can be in any language.
However, the Indo-European languages must have acquired the word structure and most of the words in the younger periods with their whole and developed and mostly polysyllabic phonetic structure. So logic tells us that this is very likely to have happened.
Of course, words weren't just born as onomatopoetic words. Some were created by humans at some time in the past. But while doing this, of course, it was done by making use of the onomatopoetic vocabulary of the previous period.
In fact, a certain part of the vocabulary in every language may have been created by people thinking and planning. These are the details that linguists put forward different ideas.
Sorry for my broken English.
Thank you for reading.
Hello Ahmet!
Why is your thread in the News instead of the Text Analysis?
It was news when it started
But you are right, it should be moved to text analysis now.
Ahmet:
leaving aside the words, which I am not qualified to comment upon, were modern European-style Arabic numerals in common usage in 15th century Turkish?
Because they don't seem to be used in the classical Ottoman script, which is Arabic based.
(06-04-2022, 10:16 PM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hello Ahmet!
[Why is your thread in the News instead of the Text Analysis?]
I do not know.
If I had to write about "under another page here" before, and I was asked the moderator for help in this matter, if you remember.
I don't quite understand how the Voynich ninja page works.
Thanks
(07-04-2022, 01:30 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Ahmet:
leaving aside the words, which I am not qualified to comment upon, were modern European-style Arabic numerals in common usage in 15th century Turkish?
Because they don't seem to be used in the classical Ottoman script, which is Arabic based.
I would question this interpretation also. Not only the use of Arabic numerals in 15th C. Turkish texts, but also the use of Arabic numerals in the VMs vords. Is this the only example of a numeral "2" in the VMs? And what about any of the other numerals "3", "4", "5", etc.?
Edit: Examples used in vords, not in page numbers.
I would be more interested to know why this particular plant has a numbering. f49v.
(07-04-2022, 01:30 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Ahmet:
[leaving aside the words, which I am not qualified to comment upon, were modern European-style Arabic numerals in common usage in 15th century Turkish?
Because they don't seem to be used in the classical Ottoman script, which is Arabic based.]
Dear Davidjackson,
It's the first time I've heard of the term "modern European-style Arabic numerals", but I think I understand what you're talking about.
Yes, you're right, it's looking uncommon.
There were also some researchers who said that these figures appeared in India (not later than the 5th century).
It is not clear which nation came up with these numbers first (with the writing of 1,2,3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) and it is debatable. But I do not want to discuss this either, because I think that definitions with the name of nation are not pleasant unless there is evidence.
Instead of "Arabic numerals"the correct description in my opinion should be ".... numerals seen in Old Arabic-written manuscripts".
If you want to know why, you can read the rest of my opinion in the section below, where I will mention some analogy examples.
It is not correct to generalize this situation as Arap or Indian. In addition, Arabic numerals are also used in some other manuscripts which written in the Latin alphabet with Arabic numerals and Turkish words in their texts. For example, in a manuscript dated to the end of the 1200s and the middle part of the second half of the 14th century, the numbers 1383 and 1374 are mentioned in the texts. The main writing language of this manuscript is not Turkish, but Turkish words can also be seen in the content.
You know, there were those who said that the Turks used only the Arabic alphabet before. This was an incorrect generalization. On the other hand, we said that the Codex Cumanikus manuscript was written in Turkish and written in the Latin alphabet. Texts with a mixed language in the Latin alphabet or in which Turkish words were used or written entirely in Turkish existed from the first day to the last day of the Ottomans.
In other words, I think that making such generalizations is not an essentially scientific approach.
We already know that European science, history and academies can in some cases produce some terminology in their academic articles in a way that gives false perception.
Is there any scientific evidence that the person who first used these numbers was from the Indian or Arab nation?
This is the same as calling the alphabet you can't read as "European Voynich Alphabet". I would like to remind you that neither the Latin alphabet nor the Voynich alphabet can be characterized as a European origin. While there is no clear evidence that writing was invented by an Indo-European, the earliest known written clay tablets on Earth were not the works of people speaking the Indo-European language group.
For instance, the name AHMET is an Arabic name.
If I was wrote my book in Arabic language, would it be true if any person to correct to refer about me as "the Arap man who first to say that the Voynich texts were in Turkish" after a thousand years from now?
We have touched this kind of VM related subjects in our book with referring to some documents and sources.
Many researcher using some terminology such as Arabic medicine, Arabic numbers, Arabic astronomy etc in their research papers. However, unless if they have not have a related dna test results to prove what they claim, it could be Turkish too, just because of many Turks was usin Arabic names and language in the past.
Even for having important scientific discoveries without empathy and without observing the ethical rules, cannot give us full happiness.
Of course, you don't have to think the same way as me.
Therefore, I must say that the generalization or using terminology like this, is an unscientific generalization and probably a false belief.
Thanks