[Gerard Cheshire did the same thing with his proto-romance mixture.]
[/quote]
Gerard Cheshire work never did the same thing (with his proto-romance mixture) if we compare our VM-Turkish ATA study. In other words, the studies and the results they provide are too far apart to be compared with each other. In fact, it can be said that there are almost no intersection sets. First of all, it will be necessary to prove that a proto-romance language containing the referenced words existed in the past.
Dear Rene,
I'm sorry, but the actual situation is not as you described it for Koen & Nablator. Anyone can judge my solution without knowing Old Turkic. However, to do so, you need to acquire enough knowledge to evaluate the presented article and the evidence shown in it.
So what I'm saying is actually this: Even if anyone doesn't know Old Turkic, they will be able to understand our articles by carefully examining and analyzing the details and the evidence presented in the article.
In fact, there is no difficult situation here. First, there must be a willingness to understand. Then, carefully reading the article along with the evidence will be sufficient.
Mr. Rene, you have not yet understood that we have provided a complete solution and we can read the texts. But if you are open to understanding this and take a little effort to look at the evidence, you will be able to understand.
You are also completely mistaken about the properties of VM texts. First of all, you need to be impartial in evaluating my articles. I don't want you misunderstood what I say. What I mean is that if you are already committed to "current VM beliefs", it will be difficult for you to understand what I have written. First, you must accept that many of the details you think are correct about VM actually have no reality and examine our articles without prejudice.
So that's my advice.
You don't need to know a single word of Turkish to understand that there is Turkish content in VM. However, you should know that the word structure of the Turkish language is not similar to any Indo-European language.
Now I will write a Turkish word for you, and then I will write its English translation.
Turkish word: GÖRÜŞEMEYECEKLERMİŞ
English translation: I HEARD THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEE EACH OTHER.
Now, let's separate the syllables of this word as like: GÖR ÜŞ E ME YE CEK LER MİŞ
If we translate it back into English, the meaning will remain the same, but it will be harder to read in Turkish, both statistically and for the reader. This is exactly what you see in VM texts, such as encryption or the repetition of the same short words many times.
In conclusion, I hope you understand that our work is based on solid evidence and rigorous analysis. We have provided a comprehensive solution, and with an open mind and careful consideration of the evidence, it is possible to comprehend the Turkish content in VM texts.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Best regards,
Ahmet Ardıç
Note:
By the way, if we remove the letter Ş at the end of the word "GÖRÜŞEMEYECEKLERMİŞ", the meaning of "GÖRÜŞEMEYECEKLERMİ" will be as follows in English: WILL THEY NOT BE ABLE TO MEET?
So,
GÖRÜŞEMEYECEKLERMİŞ = I HEARD THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEE EACH OTHER.
GÖRÜŞEMEYECEKLERMİ = WILL THEY NOT BE ABLE TO MEET?
> If you cannot understand why the English translations that appear when I only omit the last single letter in these example Turkish words that I have given can be so different from each other, then you will either believe what I say or you will not believe me and ask a linguist. Or, as a last option, you can review my article by trying to learn the structure of Turkish. I know that people who think in Indo-European languages will have difficulty understanding this, but the Turkish language is like mathematics and is actually not difficult to learn at all.
[quote="cvetkakocj@rogers.com" pid='57847' dateline='1709057676']
[According to Ahmet's logic, only Turkish linguists can judge the VM and claim or disclaim whether the language is actually Old Turkic. The Voynich solution is not depended on confirmation only, but also on disproving other possible theories. As long as any other theory is floating around, the Turkish team and the experts defending Turkic theory would have to convince non-Turkish Voynich experts why Turkish theory is better and why it can exclude all possible future proposals.]
Dear Cvetka,
Are you trying to read my thoughts? I didn't quite understand that. However, those who read your comment may mistakenly believe that I have the kind of logic you described. Please read my papers to understand what I think and what I don't, instead of trying to speak on behalf of others.
A theory, in a sense, is a kind of assumption. What we call a theory is actually a hypothesis or a system of ideas based on general principles, presented within a certain logic. The verification of a theory does not depend on whether another theory is refuted or not. If a previously confirmed matter is to be overturned or renewed by another theory, the claimant can show that the previous data considered true is actually incorrect. These are two different things. One presents beliefs, the other presents evidence. One theory can be invalidated by another piece of evidence. A belief can be invalidated by evidence. But one belief cannot be invalidated by another belief. It is not necessary to disprove one theory with another theory. Multiple different theories on the same subject can exist in the scientific environment simultaneously. What is needed is to reach findings that will validate the theories. Additionally, it is not our task to refute other VM-natural-language theories. However, I certainly read other VM theories (if they have been published in a reputable journal, symposium, or academic institution, or if the theorist is a linguist). It's quite enjoyable for me to read alternative theories on the VM topic. If you know how to distinguish between a consistent theory and an inconsistent one, you shouldn't put all theories into the same box. Not every researcher can do this.
Normally, I don't respond to comments like yours, but first, you should try to understand what's what. In doing so, I recommend examining what is happening in scientific practice and not confusing concepts.
There are many theories about the VM. If you have your own theory, you cannot validate it yourself. In other words, if you claim that these texts are in X language, the validation of this claim will ultimately be made by experts who work with the X language at a professional level. So, my advice to you is to submit your articles to experts/academics who claim to know the X language.
Slavic languages are Indo-European languages and have no connection other than borrowing words from Turkish (each other).
The Codex Cumanicus is written in the Kipchak-Cuman dialect of the Turkish language in 14th century, and its sentence structure is based on that. However, there are thousands of other manuscripts written in the Turkish language. For example, we have manuscripts dating back to the year 1000 and even earlier. Such as Dîvânu Lugâti't-Türk (Great Turkish Dictionary Compilation) is a Turkish dictionary written by Kâşgarlı Mahmud between 1072 and 1074 during the Middle Turkish period. We also reference this dictionary and many other old dictionaries and manuscripts when appropriate.
If we are going to talk about information that falls within the scope of linguistics, many things you wrote in your comment are incorrect. However, my goal here is not to improve your linguistic knowledge, of course, but I can recommend you to read more scientific articles to make stating facts instead of opinions a habit on these matters.
Knowledge is everything. But the ability to understand whether any piece of knowledge is true or not is itself a separate kind of knowledge.
Thank you for reading. I hope it was helpful.
A. Ardıç
(27-02-2024, 07:34 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[The situation cannot be resolved by disputation, rather by demonstration. Whoever has a proposed solution, let them show what is needed to read a VMs page in a way that makes sense. And if the proposed solution works well in one place, then try it on the text in other sections. If it works - it works.
The fundamental determination is: does the VMs text make sense? - and what does it say?]
If the solution is so close at hand, it should be possible to read something.
Dear R. Sale,
I can say that I agree with you on the point you mentioned.
We have read an entire page and obtained meaningful texts. Throughout the 240 pages, Turkish words are clearly visible in every line with the same ATA key.
We are presenting our readings to linguists and researchers. To do this, we have submitted our articles to peer-reviewed journals in various academic platforms and symposiums with scientific committees.
(An explanation was made on page
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. and I also shared the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. addresses where you can see our You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. about reading a full page in VM.
See > 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 had shared our articles mentioned here in previous comments. Experts who have examined what we have written have begun to congratulate us. If this means anything to you, I recommend that you reconsider and carefully compare our theory with other language theories on the Voynich Manuscript. It will be quite clear that there are significant differences among them.
I myself have developed my knowledge on the VM topic since 2018. We have data that can say many of the things previously considered correct about the VM are actually wrong. We have scientifically proven to Turkish language experts in academic platforms that there is Turkish content in the VM, and only through scientific methods. Some of these experts have spoken positively about our work in newspapers and on television, stating things like "Turkish was found in the texts" and "it was one of the important articles of the symposium," among others.
Our work has enabled the first-ever reading and understanding of VM content in history. You don't need to know Turkish to understand this. All you need is to read our articles with a scientific and skeptical perspective. While doing this reading, you should not have any old or stereotypical prejudices about the VM topic.
Knowing Turkish is not necessary to understand or test what we have written.
Thank you,
Ahmet Ardıç
(27-02-2024, 09:08 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. It's entirely written in a natural language.
How does this work with the patterns of Voynichese, which are unlanguage-like?
Quote:Many texts are in this situation and they are read as Turkish without resorting to statistical data. Thus, a solution can be reached without using statistical methods. If this were not the case, Sumerian inscriptions would have remained unread. Linguists write that the Sumerian language is not related to any known language. So, what statistical comparison method could linguists who first managed to read this language have used? Therefore, statistical methods you mention will not be verification tools. If so, the fact that the Sumerian language has been read would have to be explained as unverified information.
I'm not certain reading parts of your posts about whether you are sometimes talking about using statistics to achieve the decipherment or sometimes talking about using statistics to validate the decipherment. The latter was how I read Rene's posts.
- For achieving decipherment, statistical analyses in various forms have been vital for many decipherments. It's common for Michael Ventris's decipherment to be reduced to speculating if certain words were connected to place names, but this breakthrough was only made possible through the statistical work by himself and others, in particular to identify potential inflection and initial vowels.
- For validating decipherments, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that statistical analysis is not essential, and you reference Sumerian as evidence, because no statistical comparison could be performed between the properties of a deciphered text and the unknown properties of Sumerian? Putting aside that you certainly could run tests for linguistic coherence within and between different texts, I don't see your point here. There was a long history to the decipherment of Sumerian. I will somewhat over-simplify it by saying a lot of the decipherment was down to various bilingual sources, e.g. the Akkadian dictionaries providing Sumerian equivalents, and multiple different scholars were involved in developing translations. Sumerian doesn't seem a good comparison point.
Lastly, I may be confused here since it is late, but I didn't think Rene was saying that statistical analysis is vital for validating all decipherments. He said that for solutions that translate the vast majority of the text [i.e. the Voynich] in a way that largely makes sense, there is
"much less need for statistical tools to confirm or deny the result."
The problem that people here are pointing out is that so far your solution - as with all others - does not fall into this category. In the 40+ pages of the thread over the past few years, you haven't translated the vast majority of the text or even a minority of it. I think I asked you for sentences ages ago. We've only seen you pick individual words, feed them into your system, and then often with some alteration connect them to an Old Turkish word. It's perfectly correct to say that no expert in Old Turkish can validate such a system. If someone in the forum claims next week that the text is Medieval Maltese and produces isolated words, they may ask an expert in Medieval Maltese for verification. But the expert could only confirm if the individual isolated words resemble ones in Medieval Maltese. The expert can confirm neither the system, nor that the text is Medieval Maltese. If we accepted your Turkish theory on the basis you provided in the thread so far, we would have to ditch it next week and declare we were wrong, and that Medieval Maltese was actually the language. And then we'd have to ditch that in turn when the next solution comes round.
If you've recently translated a whole page, that is far from being the vast majority of the text. But it would be interesting to see it, because it is a significant step further from isolated words that don't show any grammar. Could you please copy paste your translation here, since the links you've posted look weird to me?
By the way:
Link to the Codex Cuanicus.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Page 58, translation by a Franciscan monk, Turkmen (Crimean) - German.
Translation manual of the Venetian merchants in the Crimea.
Dear Tavie,
Statistical methods itself will not be verification tools and-or solution alone without linguistic methods to broke VM kind texts.
Sumerian serves as a particularly good example. The process of deciphering the Sumerian language was accelerated by the prior decipherment of Akkadian. Akkadian had been deciphered before Sumerian. However, the example I provided applies to the ancient writings of any unreadable language. For a previously unreadable language, statistical comparisons may be useful in determining its relationship to living languages. However, even if a kinship bond is found between two languages through statistical methods, deciphering unreadable ancient texts will still be necessary. This is because the compared languages are written in different scripts, there is a time gap between them, and deciphering the ancient text requires phonetic linguistic analysis. So, while statistics can guide you and make your work easier, reading texts without analyzing their phonetic structure will still not be possible.
The example I provided above shows that we still need linguistic methods in deciphering two languages identified through statistical comparisons as being related. Now, let's assume you want to decipher texts written in an alphabet that you encounter for the first time and is thought to be unrelated to any living language. So, let's ask this question: Why did you think that the X language is not related to any living languages? The answer from linguists would be that the statistical approach of comparative linguistics did not show any overlap between X language and the known languages being compared.
Does the situation in VM texts resemble the situation described in the X language? Has it been possible so far to correlate/associate the VM language with any known language using statistical methods?
To establish a connection between two languages through statistical comparison, you always need to find the known texts of the languages you can already compare. There is a concept of dead languages in our world. Also, some languages are not dead, but because the ancient cultures that spoke these languages did not have a tradition of writing in their past, we may not have written ancient texts to understand their ancient language. That's why linguists try to explain the historical phonetic structures and vocabulary of these languages with linguistic methods. In other words, we know that in the historical process, linguists have used methods of comparative linguistics other than statistics to reach final solutions in such situations.
Finding statistical overlaps makes the job easier, but not finding any does not mean "finding a solution is impossible". There is no need to create an understanding that belittles statistical methods or researchers who do not use these methods in their work. Because such an perception would be disconnected from reality. Because we also use statistical methods. However, statistical methods did not lead us to the solution. Only one of the many evidence we presented contained a statistical approach. Statistical methods did not decipher VM texts or Sumerian texts. These methods can provide insight into which area to focus on in the decipherment process, expedite the process, and allow us to add new evidence to the existing ones. The situation where VM texts did not show any statistical correlation with any living language occurred. There were several main reasons for this. Firstly, the errors in the alphabet transcriptions made were one of them. Secondly, it was the writing style chosen by the author about 600 years ago to make the texts difficult to read. Sometimes, due to situations such as writing words syllabically and abbreviation writing styles, it is possible to think separately (independently) about syllables that are written separately as a word. Thus, when making comparisons, you end up comparing a word of one language with a single syllable of another language.
The situation with the VM texts doesn't end there. Some of the syllable-character-signs used by the author, which may seem like individual letters to you, are actually independent words. I have provided examples of these. The author has written some words by dividing them and combining others (multiple words) in order to make the texts less readable. Moreover, the reason for developing such an alphabet was to prevent easy reading of the texts. In this case, would it be possible to find any correlation by conducting statistical comparisons with this particular writing style and the incorrectly matched alphabet transcriptions? Certainly, obtaining a clear and analytical final result using statistical methods alone in this case is not possible.
Therefore, other methods employed by linguistics in the past may be necessary to decipher such texts. There's no point in assigning too many features or miracles to a method. The only solution is to apply all known methods to all known scenarios tirelessly. However, if your perspective and key have not led you to a solution despite examining the transcription table and words, then you should change your perspective and key. Everything is not simply black and white, and you know that too.
Furthermore, reading what you wrote, I realized that you have an opinion despite not knowing our current progress. We have read many sentences as well as some full pages. Currently, two different discussions about VM have emerged worldwide. However, you are not yet aware of this.
1-) There are researchers who are still trying to decipher the VM-texts, believing that they have not been decrypted.
2-) Among the Turkologists and linguists who know Old Turkish, there are those who are discussing with us. For example, Prof. Dr. M. Asgarov is one of them. He referenced our alphabet transcription and read more than 10 pages of the VM, which he showed me. Our debate revolves around the details of these readings. In other words, we both know that the content is Turkish, but we do not agree on the details, such as whether the meaning of a word from 600 years ago could be A or B.
Our effort here is twofold: Firstly, there are many experts working in the field of the Turkish language who are still unaware of the existence of a book called VM, and we are trying to inform this group about the subject. On the other hand, we are also trying to explain the subject to researchers who still believe that the texts have not been decrypted (as is the case here), so that among them, those who know Latin, Ancient Greek, or botanists or doctors interested in the terminology of ancient writings can help us by assuming that some words may be in these languages.
Without this assistance, it will not be possible to translate the entire 240-page book accurately into modern languages, because, as I mentioned, the biggest obstacle to translating the whole book into modern languages is almost some unknown-words seen in every line throughout the 240 pages. If the author is multilingual, they may be writing certain words in Turkish and others in languages other than Turkish (or another language). This is a highly likely possibility, and if the ancient words of this language, which could be Latin or Greek, are in the texts, it will be difficult for us to match them. Thus, currently, every line throughout the 240 pages is waiting for us to recognize the words contained within to be fully deciphered.
Thanks
[quote="Aga Tentakulus" pid='57859' dateline='1709089453']
[Link to the Codex Cuanicus.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.]
Dear Tentakulus,
Yes, I had previously examined the page you showed. The Codex Cumanicus provides us with various information about the words in the Turkish languages of the Cuman-Kipchak dialects. However, this source has provided us with limited information in VM decipherments. In addition to this, we have to look at many other ancient manuscripts and dictionaries. We have encountered numerous words specific to the Istanbul, Thrace, and even the Black Sea region dialects in the author's dialect. Currently, I can say that we are researching sources related to the dialects of the Black Sea region from 600 years ago.
Thank you,
(28-02-2024, 10:23 AM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Statistical methods itself will not be verification tools and-or solution alone without linguistic methods to broke VM kind texts. ... So, while statistics can guide you and make your work easier, reading texts without analyzing their phonetic structure will still not be possible.
I'm still not really understanding how statistical methods are so distinct from linguistic methods in this context. Does phonetic linguistic analysis in this context not include any kind of statistical work?
Quote:The author has written some words by dividing them and combining others (multiple words) in order to make the texts less readable. Moreover, the reason for developing such an alphabet was to prevent easy reading of the texts.
Is there not a bit of a disconnect with the earlier post when you said
"There is no such thing as encrypted texts spanning 240 pages. It's entirely written in a natural language." ?
Dear Tavie,
Phonetic linguistic analysis in this context include statistical works.
There is no contradiction or inconsistency between the statements I have made previously and those made in recent months. Whatever we said about the Voynich Manuscript (VM) topic one or two years ago, we are still at the same point now. The only difference is that we are reading more words and sentences every month. Therefore, we are continuing to shed light on and narrow down the gray areas regarding the author's dialect day by day. Additionally, we support our claims with findings and evidence.
The Turkish content in the VM has been proven, and the ATA alphabet transcription has become the most consistent key obtained to date. The texts are readily translatable into contemporary languages. We are already doing this, but we desire to expedite the process with the participation of more researchers.
Thank you,