The Voynich Ninja

(10-05-2022, 07:51 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Peach trees don't bloom like that - from stem tips. And the leaves are long, without that rounded shape.

Dear R. Sale,

Then, when a time machine will built, we can go back 600 years and blame the author for not being able to draw realistically. But I thought she was at least someone who could draw more realistically than Picasso for sure.

We have also read the word "SESAME" (SUSAM) and the names of 3 or 4 other plants before here in this ninja page. You did not make such a comment for them as I remember. Or did you not make a similar interpretation for those plants because you thought the author could draw them realistically?

I explained the sesame reading here, and we can think that the phonetic value in the spelling of the word has remained the same in 600 years. 
This ( You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ) looks like a sesame plant or not? We also read the name of the BANANA (MUZ / MUZ-U) plant on the same page. Does that drawing look like a banana plant? I think it looks similar. I don't know why, but banana growers in the Anamur region (in Turkey) sometimes cut off the ends of its long leaves with scissors.

Or does it not look like murt (SAZAK) plant in this page?You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The author did not paint the leaves of the plant here. So, thinking that there is a leafless plant, and should we look for it? Or maybe the author was prefer describing the fruit of the plant or drawn part of the plant only in the text.

If you want, when the time machine will built, we can travel back and beat the author for her unrealistic drawings and say her why she drawn this plant without leaves and flowers and why she was not writing the name of this plant in modern English next to it.

I think botanists should decide this issue. After all, I don't claim to know everything. I am not a botanist, but are you a botanist?   

Maybe it would be better if you don't give an opinion on every subject in a hurry, but think about what has been said/argued before and get the opinion of some subject experts first?

I made a statement that the author might have written Plum or Peach. Or she imagined or drew a hybrid species. Now, if you have done a study about all plum and peach species in the world and how their hybrid mixtures will bloom, please share so we can read and learn.

Or, the author had drawn her expectations before doing this experiment with real plants, what would be the result if she grafting (combined) a peach and a plum plants. So if you say that none of these things can happen, sorry for this but I must say that it is very tiring. Because I have explained these before, but you don't get tired of always asking the same questions.

Why do you try to hastily challenge what I have written by asking the same and already answered questions over and over, instead of asking for additional clarification in some area or rejecting or accepting the evidence I have shown when I read a word or a sentence? 

Maybe you don't realize it, but although the linguists of many universities look at our study, instead of making a hasty and negative statement, they leave an open door and give a chance to what we say. (Or so they seem, considering the early possibilities our study offers.) Some academics in this ninja platform (who are may be smarter than you and me), who may be do not want to be ashamed when that day comes, prefer to remain silent even though they read these my comments in this group. Think about why they might have made such a choice.

Thanks,

Ahmet Ardıç, the purpose of EVA is described You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., section "Purpose and Terminology" in particular. Also it is worth to note that recently EVA was redefined as being transliteration, not transcription.

Transliteration converts handwritten words into symbolic form, suitable for processing. The key property of the transliteration is that the conversion is one-to-one. Given word in the manuscript you can unambiguously write its machine-friendly representation and then process it or use in interchange with colleagues. Conversely, given the symbolic form you can learn how it is written in the manuscript. This is clearly technical feature and says nothing about underlying language. Mapping some curve to symbol k doesn't mean the curve should be read as "k".
EVA meets all these conditions*. If I understand correctly, it was originally named European because the symbolic form it produces use Latin letters. You can use another set of symbols (say Cyrillic) and create another transliteration (say CVA-даиин for EVA-daiin), but in terms of processing they will be equivalent or isomorphic.

*ok ok, there are some minor inconveniences with EVA (s/sh-issue, rare symbols).

(11-05-2022, 10:59 AM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Please put side by side together that transcriptions suggested by EVA and ATA, and look them again? Which do you think is more likely to help us?

However, despite equivalency EVA is obviously better and more helpful than any other existing transliterations, but this is offtopic.

Transcription is conversion of handwritten words into written form of some language. Both language and alphabet should be known in advance. I suppose ATA is transcription (not following the discussion properly, sorry), so it cannot be directly compared to EVA. But there should be mechanism to convert EVA to ATA then.

[attachment=6504]
@Ahmet
Now you write again that the plants are not drawn realistically. That is not true. In fact, most of them are drawn quite accurately.

I don't need a time machine to realise that you judge the drawings as fantasy to hide your ignorance and mistakes.

This example even raises the question of who drew from whom.
To be clear, most of the plant drawings correspond to the expectations of the time around 1400 and are mostly cassic. And your explanation of the bananas is pure nonsense.

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

(11-05-2022, 12:32 PM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Ahmet Ardıç, the purpose of EVA is described You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., section "Purpose and Terminology" in particular. Also it is worth to note that recently EVA was redefined as being transliteration, not transcription.

Transliteration converts handwritten words into symbolic form, suitable for processing. The key property of the transliteration is that the conversion is one-to-one. Given word in the manuscript you can unambiguously write its machine-friendly representation and then process it or use in interchange with colleagues. Conversely, given the symbolic form you can learn how it is written in the manuscript. This is clearly technical feature and says nothing about underlying language. Mapping some curve to symbol k doesn't mean the curve should be read as "k".
EVA meets all these conditions*. If I understand correctly, it was originally named European because the symbolic form it produces use Latin letters. You can use another set of symbols (say Cyrillic) and create another transliteration (say CVA-даиин for EVA-daiin), but in terms of processing they will be equivalent or isomorphic.

*ok ok, there are some minor inconveniences with EVA (s/sh-issue, rare symbols).

(11-05-2022, 10:59 AM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Please put side by side together that transcriptions suggested by EVA and ATA, and look them again? Which do you think is more likely to help us?

However, despite equivalency EVA is obviously better and more helpful than any other existing transliterations, but this is offtopic.

Transcription is conversion of handwritten words into written form of some language. Both language and alphabet should be known in advance. I suppose ATA is transcription (not following the discussion properly, sorry), so it cannot be directly compared to EVA. But there should be mechanism to convert EVA to ATA then.

With EVA, you read multi-syllable characters as alphabet signs in VM texts usually. What kind of overlap do you expect in this case? With using EVA system, read the any sign with any chosen alphabet sign sound value you want, the result does not change. In other words, most of the syllable signs and multy-syllable-signs are words on their own and there is basically no usefull structure that can correspond to this in your EVA.

With using EVA, you can map a sign to different alphabet characters or a syllable but you can't read a multy syllable single-sign.

You have made the same mistake many times when analyzing the statistical structure of words. Even many combined sign in VM not be a single letter or single syllable, but they are independent word with three or four syllables in one sign. This is exactly why EVA didn't work, and it won't. Change the sounds in endless variants as you wish, it doesn't matter. If multiple sounds corresponding to a word are represented by a single sign, you cannot read it with a system such as EVA. So this kind of the details are fixed with ATA.

(11-05-2022, 01:25 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@Ahmet
[Now you write again that the plants are not drawn realistically.] That is not true. In fact, most of them are drawn quite accurately.

I don't need a time machine to realise that you judge the drawings as fantasy to hide your ignorance and mistakes.

This example even raises the question of who drew from whom.
To be clear, most of the plant drawings correspond to the expectations of the time around 1400 and are mostly cassic. And your explanation of the bananas is pure nonsense.

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

Mr. Tentakulus,

When and where I had write "that the plants are not drawn realistically"? 

It is not my words and I never say that. 

Please can you show me where I was using exactly that same words in same order by generalizing this as "that the plants are not drawn realistically" ?


Some are similar, some are not. 

I wrote down my thoughts on why dissimilars might be dissimilar, and it was out of the question for me to generalize with the sentence you mentioned here.

Honestly, this type of behavior is very annoying to me. What right do you have to show my expressions differently?

If you are still having difficulty in understanding what you have read, then what is the point of presenting things that I did not express as if I expressed them? 

Is there a special purpose of sharing the expressions that I did not use in any of my previous comments by adding one more question, as if I had used them in the comments? Could you please tell all the readers about your purpose in passing false information here?

Please refer to my previous comments on this subject on the page at the link below. In the comment on this page below, I wrote with other comments in same sunject in same page:
 
"3- The author is a traveler. And she/he is not traveling together with the hundreds of plants she/he draws. Therefore, most of the time she/he must be drawing real plants as much as she/he can remember in his/her memory. Therefore, for some plant drawings, it may not partially coincide with the photographs we have. However, we think that she/he drew some other plants realistically and those are matching with the photographs we have."  
See this my opinion that is one of my many previous comments on this topic (is here): You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.


Here we read SAZAK, ŞALAK/SALAK and ZOLAK/ZULAK as the name of some of the plants. Did I say that the drawings made here are not similar? These are well drawn. But we cannot say that all of them are well drawn. For reading ŞALAK/SALAK, ZOLAK/ZULAK and SAZAK, refer to this page and remember again.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I wrote it in the sense that the author may have drawn some plants as he/she remembers well in realistic way.  May be for some plants which he/she was not remember well not drawn in realistic way. And-or, he/she, may have drawn about some of his/her experimental expectation, and perhaps his/her ability to paint may not be good as we expect now.

I didn't put all the drawings in VM in same one pot.

Why are you twisting my statements?

You writhe:

"Then, when a time machine will built, we can go back 600 years and blame the author for not being able to draw realistically. But I thought she was at least someone who could draw more realistically than Picasso for sure."

This means, according to my translator, that they are not realistic.

And while I'm at it, bananas didn't leave Indonesia, Philiphines and, or Malaysia until the 17th century. And probably came to us via Africa.

Maybe a little history will do you good here.

(11-05-2022, 06:39 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You writhe:

"Then, when a time machine will built, we can go back 600 years and blame the author for not being able to draw realistically. But I thought she was at least someone who could draw more realistically than Picasso for sure."

This means, according to my translator, that they are not realistic.

And while I'm at it, bananas didn't leave Indonesia, Philiphines and, or Malaysia until the 17th century. And probably came to us via Africa.

Maybe a little history will do you good here.

So if that's your answer, I can't find anything else to write to you in this case. Your ability to understanding is same as like unrefined big diamond under deep ground. If you don't mind, please educate the young people around you with your deep knowledge of history and linguistics, and they should not deprive of this informations. I wish you success to the analysis of VM texts. 

(11-05-2022, 06:39 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And while I'm at it, bananas didn't leave Indonesia, Philiphines and, or Malaysia until the 17th century. And probably came to us via Africa.

I don't think this is right.  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. article talks about them being in Africa by 500 CE and Europe (Spain) by the 1200s. Other sites also state they were beyond East Asia much earlier than the 17th century, including in Europe by the 15th century if not long before.

But in any case, I'm not sure it matters.  The methodology here appears to be that when the imagery supports the Turkish theory, it is accurate and realistic; when it doesn't, it's because the artist/author's memory is failing.  So there's little point in discussing the imagery at all here.

@Tavie
I've looked again, and I have to say; you're right.
I have looked again in 2 different dictionaries. Ok my mistake.
I also like to admit when I made a mistake, but it also tells me that I have to double check everything I read somewhere. Better 3x. You know it, but you do it again and again.

But it's still not a banana. The leaves are round and not long. The plant is lady's mantle (Alchemilla vulgaris). Classic medicinal herb. Especially the angular representation of the leaves indicate this.

Just as it is not banana, it is not Turkish. The words say nothing.
If I were to consider German, I could do that too. It would cover many possibilities. What actually amazes me is that German is present in the VM, but it is not used in try.

Example:
ei, ein, eine einer, einem.
Sei, sein, seine, seiner, seinem

Dein, mein, kein fein, ...deine meine seine kleine feine usw.

Gehen as a basic form. gang as an activity.
abgang, zugang, vorgang, eingang;  exit, entrance, process, entrance.
Endings: -heit, -keit, -ung, -nis, .-tum, forms: -chen -cher,

And I haven't even touched on the dialects.
mine, dine, sine, bii, gsii,
geschlafen, gschlafe, gschlofn: German, Allemanic, Bavarian.

Latin: As an example EVA "daiin, aiin" + "dain, ain".
Harmony of the ending and abbreviated representation:
"tutis, utis" "tuti, uti"

In this example, the ending "-tis" only changes the basic form into a command form. But it would always be a verb.

Words have not impressed me for a long time. I look for the system and the rule. According to my findings, it is somewhere between Latin and Italian with the possibility of Slavic influence.

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

(11-05-2022, 09:08 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(11-05-2022, 06:39 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And while I'm at it, bananas didn't leave Indonesia, Philiphines and, or Malaysia until the 17th century. And probably came to us via Africa.

[The methodology here appears to be that when the imagery supports the Turkish theory, it is accurate and realistic; when it doesn't, it's because the artist/author's memory is failing.  So there's little point in discussing the imagery at all here.]

Dear Tavi,


I do not fully understand. Have you stated that you find our claim that some of the plant names we have presented coincide with the drawing on the same page, partially realistic? For example, do you think that the drawing made on the page where we read the word SESAME with its phonetic form unchanged in 600 years (with the spelling of SESAME) may also belong to the sesame plant? Or do you not think? So, did you realize we might have found some plot word match, or do you think it might be an anagram or a coincidence overlap?

If you think it might be an overlap, how many of the close to 100 drawing word overlaps we share on our page do you find realistic or how many of them are unrealistic?

The question is not whether the author has the ability to paint. I also not use selectively pointing visuals to support "my Turkish theory".

I must say clearly that we are only giving examples of readings that can be done with an alphabet transcription.

Moreover, since some of our inferences seem quite radical, Turcologists who often do academic studies in Turkey and Azerbaijan are also skeptical in general because of this family project/study.

For example, we say that the author encodes the first letter of each line written from top to bottom. We say that the original intent of the author may have been to spy and/or, if he is a physician, he may have made these readings difficult in order to share his knowledge only with certain people.

Then, in the coded places, I point out that she/he may have given information that we guessed to be military from time to time, with using terminology as if he/she were like reporting to someone.

These are not easy to say. When I say these things to a Turkologist, they think that a family with "advanced" imagination is wasting their time, and in fact, I don't think they are wrong in giving this reaction. I think they are biased. It is not the diploma we have that makes us knowledgeable or intelligent.

I am an electrical engineer with a master's degree in my profession. My job is to design building projects, and some of which include factories and/or industrial automation units. By controlling the electrical flow in the electrical automation process, I am trying to predict in advance what kind of path I will follow in complex circuits and where I will eventually reach. In other words, I think I am rational and conscious, and I can consciously perceive where I am be on wrong way or where I am not. There is no such thing as coincidence in our business, and there is no room for coincidence in the sciences that go together with mathematics. But Linguistics can allow a certain degree of coincidences and anagrams. In the field of history, you can produce historical terminologies from an eye of the winner, and you can also pump the information you produce in this way. So much so that this has been done throughout history.

In linguistics, you can do anagram readings to a certain extent. For example, it is not very difficult to do this in short text inscriptions. If we're working with a few words, we can suggest some readings in every language in the world. Here, we are talking about a book written on approximately 240 pages and with approximately 40 thousand words. It is not possible to proceed by anagram or coincidence here. If I could read an anagram for 240 pages, I should be able to declare myself as the other God. (Or the God of all anagrams.)

I'm not doing this for money, or for personal gain, or for intangible satisfaction, or just because I'm a nationalist. I don't care what anyone thinks about me because of my VM readings. Do you think that, I'm not going to say what I believe just because someone else will look at it with suspicion.

I will not allow the professors and turcologists of the universities I send information to evaluate our work according to their egos or prejudices. If there are those among them who belittle our work, I will crush them with my linguistic knowledge, and they will disgraced in academic area.

There are already experts in some academies who have understood that the content of VM is in Turkish. We are in frequent contact with them. We are not discussing whether or not the Voynich manuscript contains Turkish or not. The content of the discussion is all about which pronunciation of the words should be added to the translation or what the meaning content of the word 600 years ago was or the dialect of the author,... etc.

Discussions in this area are already a frequent occurrence in linguistics. Likewise for Voynich manuscript texts, there will probably be linguists who will read and translate the same sentences in different ways for many years to come.

People will examine and think about many details on this subject, and they will learn some new things as they go into details.


First of all, it was underestimated in academia that we were running this business as a family project. Later, many linguists did not take the files we sent them seriously and did not even look at them. Probably some of them trashed the files we sent.

Do you believe that a Turkologist working in Turkey or Azerbaijan or elsewhere in the world can say "We see Turkish in the Voynich Manuscript content" just for nationalistic reasons or out of sympathy? If no one sees Turkish in the content, they will not say they have seen Turkish. Doing the opposite would be unethical and would destroy the reputation of these people along with their professional career. An honorable person does not resort to fraud, pretend to believe what he does not believe, or use deception.

It won't do any good to show suspicion each other with insinuations between the lines or compressed into sentences.

Is the purpose of this group to understand and read the contents of the Voynich book? Or is the content necessarily intended to be read in one of the European languages? I think that whatever language the author wrote, it will be read in that language. In other words, this issue is not up to you or my will, if we are each trying to understand the content, we cannot do this in the form of fighting each other. This is a process that can be carried on with the clash of ideas, but it is useful to leave aside the implications that are made towards us in this process.

The aim is to try to solve this riddle together and by helping each other. And I don't want to think that the claim that the content is in Turkish may have offended some people. Because that would be meaningless and it is beyond the main purpose. For this reason, I don't even want to think that perceptions can be created intentionally or unintentionally, which will make our work seem worthless or as if we said things we didn't say by hiding behind the words.

We do not especially tweeze the images drawn in the Voynich book in order to mislead others.

Are you saying that; "I accept pictures if those supports my theory but I am blameing the author's drawing ability when it does not fit?"

Why do we do this?

If you've read it, you'll remember that in one of my previous comments, I mentioned as a possibility that the author might not have cared too much whether the pictures on the pages were realistic or not.

In fact, since I think that more than one person wrote the articles, I do not ignore the possibility that the drawings were made by more than one person in the same way.

In addition to that, I also stated that the same plant name can be used for very different plants in different dialects of the Turkish language, and for this reason, linguists should cooperate with botanists, knowing the plant naming in the Old language.

There are many other possibilities as well.

So if some people here going to continue to try to muddy ATA work in that way then I won't be able to understand your or their main purpose. I don't know why the author drew some plants well and some badly. I'm talking about possibilities here.

Let go of allusions and focus, if possible, on what we wrote and what evidence we showed.

Or, if you say that the content of the work cannot be in Turkish, let's not waste each other's time by writing comments to each other in vain on this page.

So I say throw away the indirect allusions and write clearly whatever you have to say directly. Do you think that I accept some drawings that just because those supports our theory, but when it doesn't work for me, do I blame the author's drawing ability? Or have I actually presented this issue as just one of multiple possibilities, along with many other things, in my comments?