The Voynich Ninja

Ahmed,
When I said 'not to be rude', I meant that it was my hope you would not think I was being rude by raising the question. I certainly did not intend for you to think you had been rude. My apologies.
I think you have not understood my question.
A) the number 2 was not being written that way at the beginning of the 15th century in Europe. What evidence have you got that in Turkey it was being written in its modern form?
B) for your theory of 2 as shorthand (ie like 2U for 'to you'), what words does two sound like in Turkish of the era?

(12-04-2022, 03:20 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Ahmed,
[When I said 'not to be rude', I meant that it was my hope you would not think I was being rude by raising the question. I certainly did not intend for you to think you had been rude. My apologies.
I think you have not understood my question.
A) the number 2 was not being written that way at the beginning of the 15th century in Europe. What evidence have you got that in Turkey it was being written in its modern form?
B) for your theory of 2 as shorthand (ie like 2U for 'to you'), what words does two sound like in Turkish of the era?]

Mr. Jackson,

Since my English is quite bad, I can sometimes misunderstand what is being asked or said. And I already have difficulties in expressing my thoughts in English. For this reason, I must say that I do not want some of my direct statements to be perceived as rude. It's possible that my broken English is causing me to understand what's being said and presenting it in a way I didn't anticipate, rather than the way I thought I wanted to express it. So I guess the problem may also be related to my lack of English.

You can see various partially different Turkish Runic signs on the internet. This is because there are differences in geography, dialect and time between them. However, another reason may also be related to the fact that the Turkic-speaking groups, which are political rivals to each other, have changed their alphabet in order to format a separate nation and separate their own people from the other.


Now I will share some links and some tables below. Later, I will extract some runic signs from these tamloes and present them in another table with number signs and some explanations. I hope my English will be enough for me to express the subject I want to tell correctly. So much so that there are certain ties between the basic number pronouns and the signs called Arabic numerals in the Turkish language. Actually, I call these types of ligaments "lingulineal-overlaps". Do not look for this conceptional word in English dictionaries because you will not find it. Because in order to express the subject, I just produced it now and its explanation should be as follows;

Linguilineal-overlaps = 'the overlapping of the phonetic or semantic forms of the root sounds or first letters of the pronouns with the lineal forms of their alphabet or tamga sign'. 
I don't know how to express this thought in English with using one word. However, in a sense, this is the lineal expression of abstract definitions or thoughts by converting them into simple tamga-signs or typefaces.

Sample; like expressing a living entity with a single vertical line with the inference "if alive it can stand", while expressing a dead entity with a single horizontal line with the inference "if it is dead it collapses and becomes horizontal". Or by combining a vertical and a horizontal line in a T-form, assuming that "God created the living and dead realm," creating a tamga sign. 

Now please see this link. Because I cut off some marks there and added them to the table below. Thus, I will try to express the subject that I will try to explain through the concept content I mentioned.

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

[attachment=6402]

I will now explain some of the basic number pronouns below by showing specific examples.


For example, I will make statements like "the number we sing today in the form of "BİR" (one) was used in the form of PİR (that is, its first sound is not B, but in the form of P) in many dialects in the past and today.

Here I am referencing an academic paper to validate these sound formats below.

(For Old Turkish Numbers Phonetic forms according to the dialect differences, please see this source: 
Karadavut, Arda, Numbers in Old Turkic: Structural And Semantic Approach PhD Thesis, Hacettepe University Turkic Studies Institute / Ankara, 2020)

[attachment=6403]  The source from which we quoted this second table: {Kazım Mirşan's 1970 book named "Proto-Türkçe Yazıtlar" (Proto-Turkish Inscriptions), page 29'}

Now, examine the preliminary information and tables and resources I shared above, together with the explanations I shared below. Thus, you can see that some of the basic numbers called Arabic Numerals overlap with Turkish Runics in certain ways. Note: Here I have given examples of numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 in connection with Runic signs. There is some overlap in other basic numbers as well. In fact, this is also the subject of an article, and the article I mentioned brings a different perspective to the widely known birth and evolution chart of writing and alphabets, not just the number forms.


I do not want to extend the subject, but there are similar situations for other number pronouns and many signs of the alphabet called the Latin alphabet. Moreover, the Cyrillic alphabet will not escape this coverage.

Moreover, even if we assume that none of the overlaps that I will explain below have taken place, the phonetic value of the numbers from 1 to 9 in the Voynich manuscript texts per seen. Even only this issue itself is enough to prove that 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 was used as an alphabet letter units with their phonetic values in first time in history for sure.


Explanation about the numeral 1:

The basic number pronouns in the Turkish language were born with the names given to the fingers.

In Turkish the word "YOK (none)" also means "sıfır (zero)".
After this YOK (none/zero), the first finger to exist was named VAR/BAR. The meaning of "*VAR"/BAR is existing / to exist in English.

This word has evolved in different dialects as PAR > BAR > BİR. This word is pronounced as PİR in many different dialects.

1 = Pir/Bir/Br/Bar is seen in all of the historical Turkish dialects in its different Old Turkish form. But this sign (1) corresponded to the P sound in Runic script. It cannot be a coincidence that the P sound is the first sound of the PİR / BİR (ONE) numeral noun. Because the other basic number pronouns have a similar situation. In other words, the first sound of the phonetic value of the verbal pronunciation of these numbers in our language was expressed with these Runic signs.

The number is pronounced in the form of PİR in some dialects today. For example, it is in the form pĩr (ÇTS, p. 222) in Chuvash Turkish. It is thought that in the past it was pronounced in the form of pir in more dialects. That is, the 1 sign corresponds to the first sound of the word Pir, P.

In the main Altaic Turkic language (Ana Altay Türkçesinde), it is assumed to have been in the form of pir (1) in the past. In other words, the first sound is the P sound, and the sign expressed in the form of "Arabic numerals" today corresponds to the P sound in Turkish Runic signs, and this is an abbreviation form with the name pir as like a number.

Although there are some minor differences between the Turkish Runic alphabets of different geographies, we see these signs especially in the entire northern hemisphere. For example, these Runic signs are also seen in the Americas. The reason for this is that the nomadic groups of Turkic speakers, who have lived for thousands of years, convey the information to the geographies where they migrated.

These "Latin" P as the basic pronouns in Runic written forms can be seen in the written texts of the Turkish language dated to the seventh and eighth centuries, and one of the oldest sound forms of 1 as the word was pir. (In the image, this sign is in the form of 1 in Orkhun Turkish Runic Alphabet. It was used in the seventh or eighth century.)

The synonymous pronunciation of the number 1 (bir/pir) in the Turkish language is in the form of "TEK". The vocalizations in the form of YEK in the Persian language, which is said to be an Indo-European language (1), are nothing but the changed phonetic value of the number noun and the Turkish synonym "TEK".

Explanation about the numeral 2:
2 = Ėki “iki (two)” (pronounced EKİ in many Old Turkish dialects.)
The number two (2) is witnessed as ekki, ekki, two in the historical Turkic dialects Karakhanid Turkish, as two, ikki, ekki in Khwarezm Turkish, as two, ikki, ekki, ekki, yeki in Kipchak, and as two, ikki in Chagatay (Kaymaz, 2002, p. 753-755). "EKİ" (KTS, p. 410) in Kazakh Turkish is also seen as "EKI" in Kyrgyz Turkish. In other words, the first sound of the phonetic value of the verbal pronunciation of these numbers in our language was expressed with these Runic signs.

Main Altai p'ek' ("p/pir/bir eki" meaning is "the attached finger of the first finger" (name of the second finger). It is in the form of ėkki in the Khalaj dialect. This word is also seen in Japanese, which has the same root as Turkish, and in other languages. Old Japanese "p(w)) oko", Ryukyu Jap. fòká appears in Tokyo Japanese as Hòka.

In other words, the meaning of the word arose from the understanding of "the second finger attached to the first finger". Here again, the synonymous word in the Turkish language root is "TU = Tutturmak / Tutunmak (the root of the words to fasten, to hold on, to be fastened, etc.)". Here, this synonymous word lives in the same meaning with its close phonetic value at the root of the word 2 (TWO) as in English today.


Explanation about the numeral 3:
3 = UÇ > ÜÇ
The third finger is longer than the others. This finger was named with synonyms in the sense of tip (*uç/uçlu), high, and more alive/taller (uzun/uçlu/*diri) than the others.

In other words, the words *UÇ (at the tip/taller), and *DİRİ (more-alive/taller/long) are synonyms for this finger and the name of this number. Today, the number 3 in the Turkish language is not referred to as UÇ, but as ÜÇ.

The form "*DİRİ > *TİRİ" (with the meaning of live, high, and/or long) appears in English as the number-name as THREE in phonetic value. So much so that in many dialects of the Turkish language, D > T and T > D sound transformation is a very common situation. The use of *DİRİ/*TİRİ in Turkish probably disappeared in the language before the year 800. Today, there is the word DİRİ in our language, and this word has the old root (di-/ti-/te-/ta-/de-/da-) meaning we mentioned here, but its use in that sense has not been seen for a long time.

The U sound, one of the Turkish Runic inscriptions, is the first sound of the word *UÇ/ÜÇ of this 3 numeral noun. So here is the same situation seen in the previous examples. Only the line from both ends is extended a little more (to the side) in return for our U sign in the Latin alphabet in the Runic Turkish script.

In Turkish Runic writing signs of different geographies, there are also forms of some signs that turned 90 degrees to the right or left or 180 degrees to the opposite direction can be seen with compairing to another geography Runic signs. The possibility that different alphabets were used differently in different geographies for political reasons can be considered.


Explanation about the numeral 4:
Turkish Runic signs evolved differently in different geographies. A triangular sign is the equivalent of D sound in many dialects in Turkish Runics. The Turkish number 4 "DÖRT" (Four) also starts with the D sound. These all are abbreviations. We also know that there are already D sound characters drawn entirely in the form of 4. In other words, the first sound of the phonetic value of the verbal pronunciation of these numbers in our language was expressed with these Runic signs.

In the oldest Turkish, the sign named 4 must have been expressed in the form of a triangle with a pointed edge, like an arrowhead. Because this word is of DÜRT (verb to nudge or to poke / or in some other culters to pointing edge) origin. The index finger of our hand should have been named in that way with its the poke/pointing "DÜRT" function. The word "DÜRT" (4) in Turkish is pronounced as "DÖRT" today.

Etc. Etc. This all are linguilineal-overlaps.

We must say that all these features are also seen in the Voynich manuscript.

If you pay attention to the tables, in the book written by the researcher writer Mr. Kazım Mirşan in 1970 (which book name I wrote at the bottom of the table), the sign corresponding to the "Ç" sound is nothing but a 90 degree rotated version of the sign in the Voynich alphabet.

In other words, all these are already known things and we did not pick up certain sounds by chance in the face of a sign. Runic inscriptions found in many archaeological excavations in Europe and Cyprus have already been read in Turkish for many years.

As you can see from the tables, the Turkish Runics are exactly the same in some Latin alphabet characters. All this is no coincidence.
Because all these show overlaps in accordance with the concept of lingulineal-overlaps in Turkish.


Thanks for reading &  I am unhappy for my broken English.


Regards,

Your runes come from the Celts.

See Celtic history.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Hello Ahmet!

I tried to see the words for the numbers in the manuscript on your site, but I couldn't. If it exists, can you please give the exact link? Your site is not easy to navigate. It is possible that you have mentioned it in this thread, but due to the large number of pages I am easily lost, sorry.

(16-04-2022, 08:59 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[Your runes come from the Celts.

See Celtic history.]
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Runic signs are seen all over Europe and Asia, on the islands of the Mediterranean, and as far as the Americas and Australia.

During the archaeological excavations in Cyprus, some objects and items were found that are assumed to be between 2500 and 3000 years old. The writings on these parts were read in Turkish by researcher linguist Mehmet Turgay Kürüm. Glozel, Celts & Scandinavian Runes and many others in Europe were also read in Turkic only, but not any other European languages.

Runic inscriptions roots have been evolved from the tamga signs of nomads. Tatars, Scythians, Etruscans etc. spread them all over Europe. We know how these signs evolved. Celts people used them. The Vikings also used the different format. However, it is fact that the forms of the signs in the language in which they were created show semantically linguilineal-overlapse.

Today, the naming based on which geography they originated in is wrong. For example, there are no such ancient Runic scripts that could be read and proven to be read in the Celtic language. These are erroneous or inaccurate attributions.

The autonkton peoples of Europe were not peoples speaking the Indo-European language group. These were peoples speaking Turkic languages such as Tatars. They were mostly destroyed by using genocide thousands of years ago. In other words, the worst of the persecution and genocide of the Europeans on the Native Americans in the Americas had happened before in Europe.

(16-04-2022, 10:20 AM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hello Ahmet!

[I tried to see the words for the numbers in the manuscript on your site, but I couldn't. If it exists, can you please give the exact link? Your site is not easy to navigate. It is possible that you have mentioned it in this thread, but due to the large number of pages I am easily lost, sorry.]

I'm still trying to upload our raw notes whenever I have time on our own web-site. Therefore, both their Turkish and English language of our web-page content needs to be revised and corrected. But we don't have time to do that.


I do not read using a computer. I am usually take notes on papers with pencil. Now we have completed our first book from my paper notes. And I also wrote some articles.

I will post them first. Then I can upload my reading notes on the papers to our page. That's all I can do at this stage. But I give detailed information on these issues in my book and articles. I have a lot of old texts that have been read. I plan to turn them all into books. I'm talking about ancient texts other than Voynich writings. There are also articles written by others on these topics. If I find their English versions, I can share them here. But I write my books and articles only in Turkish.

Stick to the facts.
The 1970 statement is outdated and not true.
Erkruskers are Europeans. More precisely, they are northern Italians.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I am beginning to suspect that you are trying to justify your theory about the history of 4000 years and by scraping together words from all over the Near East.
There is no connection between VM and Turkish, and yes, the Europeans came from the East 40,000 years ago. But that's probably not it.
I think you've got yourself into something too, and you're stuck.

Translated with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (free version)

(16-04-2022, 12:49 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stick to the facts.
The 1970 statement is outdated and not true.
Erkruskers are Europeans. More precisely, they are northern Italians.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I am beginning to suspect that you are trying to justify your theory about the history of 4000 years and by scraping together words from all over the Near East.
There is no connection between VM and Turkish, and yes, the Europeans came from the East 40,000 years ago. But that's probably not it.
I think you've got yourself into something too, and you're stuck.

I agree with you on your general point about where this is all going (and where it's coming from), but since the other thread on this issue included a lengthy diatribe that we Europeans are going around "claiming" languages, I just wanted to flag that the Etruscan language is unlikely to be Indo-European.

Very little is known about Etruscan's origin.  We can read its words aloud because it uses an earlier version of the alphabet.  We even know the meaning of a small range of words thanks to comparative texts.  While the range is very small due to paucity of Etruscan texts, the words show enough differences with the various branches of Indo-European for the general consensus amongst linguists to be that Etruscan is probably not an Indo-European language.

But the range is also too small for any respectable theory connecting it to another big language family.  There are no grounds for saying Etruscan is Turkic or indeed part of any big language family.  It is doubtful that we will ever know what family it belonged to.  There simply isn't enough linguistic material to do a proper comparison.  Any such theories are just fringe theories.    

In terms of the Etruscan people (worth noting that language origin doesn't always correlate with genetic origin, even if it seems likely), there have been theories about where they came from for millennia.  The standard two alternatives seem to be that they had been indigenous to the area for a long time, or they migrated from the Near East, which was not Turkic at the time.  It seems every few years there's a new DNA analysis of corpses or cattle arguing one or the other.

[quote="Aga Tentakulus" pid='49952' dateline='1650109748']
[Stick to the facts.]



Mr. Tentakulus,

For sure. Please stick to the facts only. 

We must not stray from the path of Science and accept only the predominant evidence available. Enough fake history has been written and read with personal opinions.


Researcher Kazım Mirşan showed that he had read many Runic writings of different periods in different parts of Europe, which he wrote in 1970 (in the book whose name I shared in my previous comment), with the transcription he made for them.

Linguist Prof. Dr. Firudin Celilov also read the writings of Etruscan civilization. Also, the language of the Etruscan civilization is not from the Indo-European language family, but is definitely a Turkic language. For this reason, we can read the remaining writings of them. Moreover, genetic studies confirm us. However, there are those who use terminologies such as the Anatolian peoples in order not to show Turkish connection in their scientific articles in order to manipulate them. You believe in artificial and unrealistic historical information. Actually, you are not alone. Almost as many Europeans and Americans think as you do. However, the facts are different. Whether you accept it or not, we read the Runic writings that have come to light through archaeological studies in the whole European geography and the Mediterranean.

Many DNA researchers have been pointing that;

"The shortest genetic distances between the Etruscan and modern populations are with Tuscans (FST=0.036; P=.0017) and Turks (FST=0.037; P=.0001); values of FST<0.050 were also observed for other populations of the Mediterranean shores and for the Cornish. The mean pairwise sequence differences between the Etruscans and other European populations range from 3.79 to 6.26 substitutions, with a global average of 4.64. The Tuscans differ from the Etruscans by 4.65 substitutions—that is, almost exactly the value that would be expected with a random population from the database. However, these values are also affected by the internal diversity of both samples being compared. If we subtract the internal diversity, thus obtaining Nei’s (1987) dAB distance, the genetic distance between Etruscans and Tuscans becomes the shortest, with other southern and eastern Mediterranean populations also showing relatively close genetic relationships (fig. 3). In the MDS plot (fig. 4), the Etruscans fall out of an unstructured cluster comprising most European and Caucasus populations, including the Turks. To better compare the Etruscan gene pool with those of contemporary Italy, we treated these populations as hybrids among four potential parental populations, from the four corners of the area considered in this study (table 2). The likely contributions of each parental population, or admixture coefficients, are similar for the three modern Italian populations, but Etruscans differ in two aspects: they show closer relationships both to North Africans and to Turks than any contemporary population. In particular, the Turkish component in their gene pool appears three times as large as in the other populations. These admixture estimates are not to be taken at their face value, for numerous assumptions underlie their estimation. Here they only serve to show that, with respect to modern Italian gene pools, the Etruscan one contains an excess of haplotypes suggesting evolutionary ties with the populations of the southern and eastern Mediterranean shores. ... To summarize, only a few Etruscan sequences find an exact match in the modern database, but all belong to lineages that are still present in Europe. Some genetic affinities with modern people from western Europe reflect the sharing of lineages (5AM, 6AM, and 19M) that are widespread over the whole continent, and that therefore do not seem to point to any migrational contact but rather to a common origin of various European gene pools. On the contrary, the similarity between the Etruscan and Turkish gene pools may indeed reflect some degree of gene flow. Commercial exchanges are documented between the Etruscan harbours and Asia Minor (Tykot 1994) and trading is often accompanied by interbreeding, ultimately leading to detectable levels of genetic affinity (see Relethford and Crawford 1995). Thus, the present study suggests that gene flow from the eastern (and possibly southern) Mediterranean shores, not necessarily from Lydia as proposed by Herodotus, left a mark in the Etruscan gene pool, above and beyond what is observed in contemporary Italy."

See the source; You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

According to a Turin genetic specialist, 30% of a native Tuscan’s DNA is quite similar to the inhabitants of Anatolia, now modern-day Turkey. The percentage of similarity rises to 40% in the inhabitants of Murlo, a small village in the province of Siena, who thanks to isolation, are believed to be direct descendants of the Etruscans, the original settlers of Tuscany, held to have migrated from Asia Minor.  To read more in Italian, visit Florence’s La Repubblica news site.

See this; You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

And see this source article too; And see this source article too; Huseynova H. HISTORICAL FACTS: ETRUSCES AND THE ALPHABET. International Journal of Scientific Research (IBAD). 2017; 104-109. / Huseynova H. TARİHİ GERÇEKLER: ETRUSKLAR VE ALFABE. Uluslararası Bilimsel Araştırmalar Dergisi (IBAD). 2017; 104-109.

The people known as Etruscans shared ancestors; that is to say, they were not a group of people who ended up in the same area as each other due to similarities in character. That there was a distinct similarity between the DNA of modern Turks and the Etruscans. This proves the fact that there were, within the Etruscan population, those of Eastern.

See the paper: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

See This:  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

& see this too; You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

The debate on the origins of Etruscans, documented in central Italy between the eighth century BC and the first century AD, dates back to antiquity. Herodotus described them as a group of immigrants from Lydia, in Western Anatolia, whereas for Dionysius of Halicarnassus they were an indigenous population. Dionysius' view is shared by most modern archeologists, but the observation of similarities between the (modern) mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) of Turks and Tuscans was interpreted as supporting an Anatolian origin of the Etruscans. ... The results show that the observed genetic similarities between modern Tuscans and Anatolians cannot be attributed to an immigration wave from the East leading to the onset of the Etruscan culture in Italy. Genetic links between Tuscany and Anatolia do exist, but date back to a remote stage of prehistory, possibly but not necessarily to the spread of farmers during the Neolithic period.


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

Some researchers extracted and typed the hypervariable region of mitochondrial DNA of 14 individuals buried in two Etruscan necropoleis, analyzing them along with other Etruscan and Medieval samples, and 4,910 contemporary individuals from the Mediterranean basin. Comparing ancient (30 Etruscans, 27 Medieval individuals) and modern DNA sequences (370 Tuscans), with the results of millions of computer simulations, we show that the Etruscans can be considered ancestral, with a high degree of confidence, to the current inhabitants of Casentino and Volterra, but not to the general contemporary population of the former Etruscan homeland. By further considering two Anatolian samples (35 and 123 individuals) we could estimate that the genetic links between Tuscany and Anatolia date back to at least 5,000 years ago, strongly suggesting that the Etruscan culture developed locally, and not as an immediate consequence of immigration from the Eastern Mediterranean shores.

See this source;  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Genealogical discontinuity may result from a number of phenomena, ranging from the Etruscans’ extinction to a deep dilution of their genetic features due to extensive input of immigrants or mass emigration after the Roman assimilation. However, a third, and simpler, explanation was proposed by Achilli et al. (2007), who observed similarities between the contemporary mtDNAs of Turks and three samples of Tuscans. They interpreted this finding as evidence of a common descent of these populations from Etruscan ancestors. To account for the low haplotype sharing between contemporary people and the Etruscans, Achilli et al. (2007) invoked unspecified technical errors in the ancient sequences, concluding that the Etruscans’ DNA may be misleading if one is to understand the Etruscans’ origins.

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

You have a situation where you think that your personal wishes match with real life, but I guess you are not the only one in the same situation. That's why the best way to question the veracity of your fixed and endearing ideas is to look at what the opposing views say and the evidence they present.


Regards

I don't need any more proof of that. You have just brought it.

You are just trying to justify your language theory with a migration from the Bronze Age 4000 years ago. But it doesn't work like that. It still has no connection to the VM.