The Voynich Ninja

Dear Researchers,

So, for those who speak Italian, I can recommend a book and a few articles that they can read over the weekend which book partially has info about Turkish language phonology too:

This book was written based on history, archeology, and genetic studies, focusing on the Old Turkish language & culture in European history, and the presence of Non-Indo European archaeological findings in Italy, as well as the details of the settlement of Indo-European languages in Europe. The author of the book and articles is Mario Alinei.

Who is the linguist and writer M. Alinei?
Mario Alinei, an emeritus professor at Utrecht University of Italian Linguistics:
M. Alinei graduated from Sapienza University of Rome in 1950 & he was an emeritus professor at Utrecht University of Italian Linguistics, where he taught from 1959 to 1987. He was the founder of Quaderni di Semantica, a journal focused on theoretical and applied semantics. He also served as the president of the "Atlas Linguarum Europae" (at UNESCO), which he co-founded with Anton Weijnen from the University of Nijmegen.
See: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

The book is:
Gli Etruschi erano turchi. Dalla scoperta delle affinità genetiche alle conferme linguistiche e culturali
di Mario Alinei
Editore: Edizioni dell'Orso
Collana: Lingua, cultura, territorio
Data di Pubblicazione: 2013
EAN: 9788862744317
ISBN: 8862744315
Pagine: 116
Descrizione; Gli Etruschi erano turchi > Dalla scoperta delle affinità genetiche alle conferme linguistiche e culturali.
"Il presente volume parte dalla recente ricerca genetica, che ha definitivamente dimostrato l'affinità genetica degli Etruschi con i Turchi anatolici, e mira a dimostrare come anche la linguistica e la storia culturale rafforzino e confermino tale affinità. Fonetica, morfologia e lessico delle due lingue mostrano infatti numerose e notevoli corrispondenze, e ancora più numerose e significative sono le corrispondenze culturali: nel mito delle origini da una lupa, nella religione, nella pittura e ritrattistica, nell'architettura, nell'oreficeria e gioielleria, nell'equitazione, nella lotta, nella musica, nella danza, nel banchetto rituale, nell'abbigliamento."
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

See: The Paleolithic Continuity Paradigm for the Origins of Indo-European Languages International PCP Workgroup Website You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Mario ALINEI, Kurgan Culture, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Recensione del libro: "Gli etruschi erano turchi: dalla scoperta delle affinità genetiche alle conferme linguistiche e culturali" da Mario Alinei, Alessandria, Edizione dell'Orso, 2013, 102 pagine. ISBN: 978-88-6274-431-7 / ISSN: 2611-3813 / Università Ca' Foscari
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Piazza A. et al. Origins of the Etruscans: Novel Clues from the Y Chromosome Lineages, European
Journal of Human Genetics Conference in Nice, France, June 2007; European Journal of Human
Genetics Conference, Vol. 15, Supplement 1 (conference abstracts), p.19. ; Brisighelli F, Capelli C,
Alvarez-Iglesias V, et al. The Etruscan timeline: a recent Anatolian connection. Eur J Hum Genet.
2009;17(5):693-696. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2008.224.
Vernesi, Cristiano, et al. “The Etruscans: a population-genetic study.” American Journal of Human Genetics vol. 74,4 (2004) pp. 694-704. doi:10.1086/383284.

Thanks,

Oh, would that be the "Paleolithic continuity theory" that Wikipedia calls a fringe theory because its claims are "linguistically highly improbable".
Well, no matter, i am sure that book is  a fun read.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

For the sake of anyone new reading this, I'll reiterate what I said when this came up earlier in the thread:  claims that Etruscan (or indeed Sumerian or [insert famous language isolate here]) are Turkic are at best fringe linguistic theories, at worst complete pseudo-linguistics. 

As Rob alludes to, Alinei's theories around PIE and connections between Turkic, Hungarian, and Etruscan have been classed as fringe theories.

Macro-language families, e.g. like Nostratic or Eurasiatic, are fun to imagine but they have never been proven and are likely unable to be proved.  This is why they are fringe theories.  Any original common ancestor language would date back so long ago that we cannot find meaningful and systemic commonalities in descendant languages that are distinguishable from random coincidence.  The languages would have changed far too much in that time.  Moreover, the Etruscan written corpus is limited and dates millennia after any hypothetical split, and we don't see any Turkic writings recognized until at least a millennia after that, and they are limited too.

On the genetic studies (which in this case do not help us with identifying the language family), there have been far more recent ones, including a couple that found little difference between Etruscans and their Latin contemporaries.  How odd this wasn't mentioned.  As a side note, in the context of Etruscan origin, it's pretty important not to read "Anatolian" as synonymous with "Turkic", given that this usually refers to Anatolia about two millennia before Turkic peoples arrived there.

Turkmen only came to Anatolia in the 11th century. Individual groups arrived as early as the 10th century, but the majority came later. 1060 Battle with Bizanz on the Black Sea. Turkmen had runes, but no writing. This was adopted by the Arabs in the 12th century. Before that in Anatolia, Greek, exactly as you see it in the books. (writings of Bizanz).
Then came the expansion. Last battle with Bizanz on Asian soil around 1360 at Maltepe, and the translation to European soil.
Where do all these writings come from that explain the Turkish dialects?

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

(10-07-2024, 12:24 AM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[Oh, would that be the "Paleolithic continuity theory" that Wikipedia calls a fringe theory because its claims are "linguistically highly improbable".
Well, no matter, i am sure that book is  a fun read.]
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Dear RobGea,

It was a book recommendation for you to read over the weekend, and sometimes carefully examining different views is a new beginning that can show that many things thought to be right are wrong. I think it is time to change the perspective by getting rid of the wrong conclusions that have been repeated for years in VM studies.

In addition to that, crowded Human populations and ancient languages have survived until today by evolving and changing their geography and phonetically deriving new languages from each other. If, at a certain period of history, a new language did not transform or derive from old languages but did come to Earth from space, it is possible to find these theories absurd. However, many things considered absurd in time are seen as logical and more likely. The hypothesis suggesting that the Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) can be traced back to the Upper Paleolithic, several millennia earlier claims are linguistically highly probable, and very logical. Nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples have carried their languages with them to all parts of the world for tens of thousands of years.

(10-07-2024, 01:07 AM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[Macro-language families, e.g. like Nostratic or Eurasiatic, are fun to imagine but they have never been proven and are likely unable to be proved.  This is why they are fringe theories.  Any original common ancestor language would date back so long ago that we cannot find meaningful and systemic commonalities in descendant languages that are distinguishable from random coincidence.  The languages would have changed far too much in that time.  Moreover, the Etruscan written corpus is limited and dates millennia after any hypothetical split, and we don't see any Turkic writings recognized until at least a millennia after that, and they are limited too.

On the genetic studies (which in this case do not help us with identifying the language family), there have been far more recent ones, including a couple that found little difference between Etruscans and their Latin contemporaries.  How odd this wasn't mentioned.  As a side note, in the context of Etruscan origin, it's pretty important not to read "Anatolian" as synonymous with "Turkic", given that this usually refers to Anatolia about two millennia before Turkic peoples arrived there.]

Dear Tavie,

After reading what you wrote, I can say that I concluded that you may not have read what was written in the mentioned books and articles. First of all, the new genetic studies conducted after the mentioned genetic study did not produce any results that could discredit or cancel the previous findings and results. Secondly, in the aforementioned genetic studies, the words Anatolian and Turk were both used clearly, without mixing them. We perceive Anatolia as a geographical region and the word Turk as the name of a certain community. In addition, Etruscan writings are diverse enough to make transcription reading and establishing relationships with today's languages. Linguists also study these writings and links are shown. To say that there may be a connection between two languages compared (at least at the level of lexical exchange), it is checked whether the words in these languages overlap phonetically and semantically. In addition, the organizational/fundamental structure of the compared languages is also examined. Here, not only are there many overlapping words between the two languages that you do not see any connection between, but also the structure of these languages is an agglutinative language. Moreover, the authors of the books and articles I mentioned are professors who are experts on the subject, and science has progressed to the extent that different opinions are taken into account.

[quote="Aga Tentakulus" pid='60462' dateline='1720601041']
[Turkmen only came to Anatolia in the 11th century. Individual groups arrived as early as the 10th century, but the majority came later. 1060 Battle with Bizanz on the Black Sea. Turkmen had runes, but no writing. This was adopted by the Arabs in the 12th century. Before that in Anatolia, Greek, exactly as you see it in the books. (writings of Bizanz).
Then came the expansion. Last battle with Bizanz on Asian soil around 1360 at Maltepe, and the translation to European soil.
Where do all these writings come from that explain the Turkish dialects?]


Dear Tentakulus,

You are repeating the information in the history books you were taught. This is a very normal and understandable situation, and history teaching spreads this information worldwide. However, these are the personal opinions of historians, and historians who provide other consistent evidence for their different views have mostly been ignored.

However, if I look at the evidence shown in the history and linguistics books I have read, they differ from the commonly taught history knowledge in certain, and important details. Essentially, we should examine the evidence presented rather than people's comments. The date you mentioned is 1071, the last date when Turks came to Anatolia en masse, but it is not the date they first came. Prof. Dr. In his Urmia theory, Firudin Celilov argues that Turks migrated from Anatolia and the ancient Sumerian geography to Central Asia. Each theory offers its evidence, but we must evaluate the evidence presented in terms of its content. Turks are an autochthonous people in both Anatolia and Europe.

About 2500 years ago, Turkmens lived on the island of Cyprus. Researcher Mehmet Turgay Kürüm is the person who proved this by reading the Runic inscriptions found on many objects in the Cyprus archaeological excavations with Turkish Runic sound values. Moreover, almost all of the objects contain Turkish folkloric motifs, and there are also overlaps in the burial culture. Many historical region toponyms/names in Anatolia before Christ are Turkish names. For example, Cappadocia is known as a Persian name but not. It is Turkish. . These have been put forward based on the findings of linguistics, semantics, and comparative linguistics.

Even if we do not want to call it liar and fraudulent history writing, fake history writing has already become garbage, but the unaware audience is larger. However, just because a large number of people believe in a piece of information does not mean that that information is true. History and linguistics will be enlightened to the extent that they are cleared of fabrications and personal views. The only way to do this is for scientists with different views to hold discussions among themselves. Thinking that accepting the common view as correct, and defeating or eliminating the different view is the way ignorant people think and behave.

Hear different opinions from me so that the monotonous music in your ears can be diversified.

Scientific consensus exists for a reason: it reflects our best knowledge based on the information we currently have. Clinging to fringe theories does not make you braver or smarter than those who follow the majority opinion - quite on the contrary.

Is it a coincidence that both your views on linguistics and on the Voynich clash with the scientific consensus in favor of an increased importance of your own cultural heritage?

(10-07-2024, 02:59 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[Scientific consensus exists for a reason: it reflects our best knowledge based on the information we currently have. Clinging to fringe theories does not make you braver or smarter than those who follow the majority opinion - quite on the contrary.
Is it a coincidence that both your views on linguistics and on the Voynich clash with the scientific consensus in favor of an increased importance of your own cultural heritage?]

Dear Koen G,

Deciphering the Voynich Manuscript (VM) and having the knowledge to evaluate the findings in the field of linguistics is not coincidental. I also have enough information to understand whether a widely accepted belief in the scientific field is based on personal inferences or concrete evidence.

All personal opinions not based on evidence have always been and will always be open to human error.

Let's give an example:
For instance, linguists mostly think that "the culture that first invented writing must have been a settled culture because the need to create schools and books could only have arisen in a settled culture."
Do you think this widespread view can be logical? Where is the evidence that supports this kind of inference?

The proponents of this view will say that the writing culture was born in settled societies and in the cities established by humans after the transition to agriculture. They can also show the Sumerian cuneiform tablets as evidence. Those who want to support this view will say that the earliest known examples of writing can be seen in the earliest known early-city societies.

This kind of view is taught in linguistics books, becomes a widespread opinion, and is adopted by the majority. From this point on, the articles written by researchers who do not accept the majority as correct are considered extreme opinions, and the evidence they present is not examined and discussed enough. However, science has been able to make progress in every field thanks to those who put forward different ideas.

Here, the different opinion does not have to be correct either, but if logical inferences based on sufficient evidence are put forward, even if they are not correct, they will result in deeper examination and more detailed consideration of the issues. Therefore, I can say that it is an ignorant and foolish approach to belittle opposing views in the scientific field.

Societies that invented writing cannot be settled societies, and if the oldest known settled society used a writing system, this writing system must have been developed in the previous periods by nomadic cultures. Nomads had to leave marks carved on rocks in the areas they passed through and stayed for a while, such as where the water sources are, where the hunting is more abundant, where the danger is, who died where, and which direction to go. Because it is impossible for them not to carve these descriptive and pre-determined marks on the terrain if they want to return the same way themselves or if other relatives from the same tribe want to travel in the same direction after them. Therefore, the beginning of early writing or the drawing and classification of defining images and pictures must have been realized by nomadic groups thousands or even tens of thousands of years ago. Central Asian steppes, Europe, Anatolia and the American continent are full of these kinds of marks, and each group must have had separate tamgas or defining marks.

We can say that the widespread view that writing was discovered by settled peoples is weaker than the possibility that it was discovered by nomads. Science advances by putting forward stronger inferences. Writing may have developed and evolved into alphabetic writing in settled cultures, but its invention was most likely a discovery of nomadic cultures.

I think you understand this. The importance of what the majority believes in is irrelevant. Science cannot ignore the findings that logic and mathematical probabilities push upwards forever. The Indo-European language theory is also a majority inference with weak aspects, but we have pierced this theory countless times and we continue this effort in the name of science.

I know how my writings will be criticized and with what arguments. However, we have presented all the evidence that refutes these criticisms many times. I and others are doing this in the name of science.

Now I repeat these questions and if you answer, we can move forward:

1- How should the occurrence of quadruple and fifth-times word repetitions, unique to Turkish, in VM texts be interpreted on a scientific level? Based on this info, What could this event mean in terms of mathematical possibilities, and to what extent could there be overlap between which languages?

2- Only in VM texts and Turkish; How should the situation of "words never begin or end with certain sounds/letters" be interpreted on a scientific level? Based on this info, What could this event mean in terms of mathematical possibilities, and to what extent could there be overlap between which languages?

3- Have words written with 5, 6, or 10 vowels or consonants side-by-side words been recorded in the history of Indo-European and Semitic languages?

4- How many different text images/letters are there in VM texts?

5- Is it possible that the VM texts could not be read due to incorrect transcription texts made so far?

6- I claim that there are 340 to 360 different writing signs/letters in VM texts. When there were so many written signs (even if there were more than 100 in total), it should have been understood that some of the signs in the texts had to be syllabic characters. Do you have a response to this opinion?

7- 112 drawn word matches between VM and Turkish, 1000 word matches (in terms of meaning and phonetics, and moreover, the spelling of 21% of them will remain unchanged in 600 years), more than a hundred sentences have been read means that there is a strong mathematical connection between VM and Turkish language. Does it provide information as a possibility, or is it all a coincidence or does it match the words we made up with our imagination? (If so, how do you explain the fact that we can find these words in the dictionary pages and show them to you and linguists?)