27-09-2022, 09:00 PM
(26-09-2022, 05:03 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is a complete overlap in word repetitions written side by side, and a 1/1 similar situation is not seen in Indo-European languages.Hi, Ahmet, thank you for your effort to try to defend your Turkish theory. To solve the mystery of the VM, a lot more will be necessary than to prove that the language is Turkish, however, the only thing about your theory so far is what it had in common with the medieval Old Church Slavonic (the language spoken in Thessaloniki in the 9th century). You can read about it on Texas University Ancient Languages site.
You claim to have tested your theory by having Turkish experts translate You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. with their translation being 50% match to yours. Maybe you should pick some other page that you had not 'translated' and let them do the independent transliteration, transcription and translation, using your Latin ATA alphabet. Offering them 180 different Syllables to work with, you already imposed your subjectivity on their translation. You have no way of knowing that those tall glyphs can be dissected to syllables that would enable you (and others) to read them the way you want.
For all we know, they could have just fixed-up your translation by removing the nonsense that did not belong in that time and place.
Your alphabet was based on your subjective belief that the circle, divided into 12 sections, contains the words that represent the names of the months, yet you were only able to find 4 words that could have some remote association with weather and farm labour. You show the copied pictures of the words that start with what you interpret as OY/AY, meaning 'month', yet you did not offer any interpretation of those words. Do they all relate to 'month', 'moon'? Do all the two-syllable words, starting with OY/AY represent the grammatical variation of the words 'moon', 'month'.
As for your other proofs, let me make some of my observations.
It is not enough to proof that you find some Turkish words and grammar in the VM, you would need to do a lot more, like disprove other theories and prove that those 180 characters you claim to recognize in the VM really existed and that they are used consistently more than a few times. You will also need to show some Turkish text written in Latin and compare the letter shapes, grammar and vocabulary. I understand that you cannot find a single paragraph written exactly the same, but showing how Turkish was written in Latin letters in the 15th century would be very helpful in this case.
Your reasoning is based on your naive understanding of linguistics. Reading how the text is written and how you would like it to be written to support the story formed in your mind are two different things. You cannot persuade us to take your word that a certain statement you make is the truth, because it is written that way.
You can read EVA daiin as SAM (I am) and I can read it as DAM (I give), and you can read EVA ot as OY/AY (moon, month) and I can read it as OD/OT (preposition: from, of, since, prefix, or a part of another root word).
You explained the word SAM as I AM, but you did not mention other conjugations for second or third person singular or plural, nor did you explain why this word - if it is a Turkish suffix, can be found in
Who is going to judge? I suppose any linguist looking at the 1000 VM words starting with EVA ot (most of them one or two -syllables) could figure out if it is more likely that it stands for the words originating from the root word moon or if they can be prefixes or prepositions, or just two initial letters in other words.
You can claim that the word SAM mins I am and the story in the present tense, but you need to explain also the other words starting with S.
A agree with you that the change of writing style could change the suffixes and give an impression of different language. However, you said very little about the Turkish grammar reflected in the VM. You claim the language is agglutinative, yet it has prefixes and suffixes. You did not explain the string of the same suffixes in different words on the same line. This can be explained in Slovenian language.
You showed us a copy of the VM words that are repeated, or seem to be repeated, up to five times in the VM and you claim that this is exclusive feature of the Turkish language. We all know that in prayer and poetry, the words are often repeated for emphasis, even in normal speech. Unless you translate those words in context of a sentence, you cannot even prove they are the same words. A slight variation in handwriting could mean different letter or combination of letters, different accent or vowel pronunciation can mean different word.
To claim that this is the main proof for Turkish language is a bit too far.
Your reasoning why the VM experts are wrong and you are right is ridiculous, because you are stuck in your mentality, like your conviction that the pictures of naked women could not be created in Europe because the author would be burned at the stake. Jan Huss was burned at the state, but he did not draw naked women. On the other hand, Michelangelo created a lot of naked pictures, some are even found in the Sixtine chapel in Rome, and he was not burned at the stake. Your idea that the naked females in pools could only refer to Sultan's wives in the harlem is equally naive: There were natural and man-made pools all over Europe where people were bathing naked, even at Roman times.
You cannot interpret the VM pictures with the mind of a contemporary teenager who has no clue about European history. History and religion were important aspects of medieval way of thinking. They also affected language and culture.
You said that you only examined 10 % of the VM in detail and identified 700 Turkish words, about 20% with no phonetic change. (If the VM was as easy to read as you claim, you could have examined the entire manuscript and translated it by now.) This might sound convincing to some, but without your explanation how you have arrived from VM words and their pronunciation (which is not indicated) to medieval Turkish pronunciation and eventually to the present spelling and pronunciation.
Your lack of understanding linguistic makes you believe that prefixes cannot be the same as root words. This might be the rule in Turkish language; however, it is not in the VM, nor in Slovenian and other languages. When language developed, prefixes were added to the roots (the same way as post-fixes in Turkish) to form new words that form the expanded vocabulary. The words with prefixes can be inflected in the same way as the root words. They can also be changed in other grammatical forms (nouns, verbs, adjectives).
In the Middle Ages, prefixes were normally spelled together with the word they were defining. Prepositions were also most often spelled together, and occasionally separately. In 16th century, the apostrophe was used and eventually the full separation was required.
Regarding the prefixes and suffixes, I definitely agree with the VM experts, although I do not agree with all particulars.
Your story about author(s) keeps changing - from one to three, to travelling family, now you came up with the idea that the VM was written in draft by a woman who was sending individual page of two by post to the editor. You did not mention if the editor was in Europe or in Istambul, but the mere idea of an editor is ridiculous, particularly when you claim that book contains military secrets. And how would they copy her pages and drawings if they did not understand what they were writing? This whole idea is your imaginative explanation to complicate the things so that you can claim as much freedom in interpreting the text as you wanted.
What is the most peculiar to me is that you and your team seek the most exotic Turkish words, while ignoring the ones that appear most frequently, like over 100 times, and those appearing more than 500 times in exact grammatical form. This is one of the most important clues for the recognition of the language. If the majority of words become known, the most exotic ones, used ones or twice, are not even important.
Your claim of the overlap between the words and the drawing is also questionable. I grew cucumbers and onions of all kinds, including garlic, and I can tell you they don't look anything like the VM picture you identified, and I am even more sure that the myrtle tree does not grow out of two lions.
I hope I you you will have your English translation of the book ready soon. Best of luck with Turkish editions.
Cvetka