The Voynich Ninja

Distinguish between drawings, symbols and writing.
For example, wavy lines can mean water. Regardless of the form, it is not writing.
Only when different symbols follow one another in a row can we speak of writing, as it explains a certain intention.
This symbolic writing has developed in sedentary cultures. The best known are probably the Egyptian hieroglyphs. 3300 BC.
But the Mayan or Chinese hieroglyphs are also symbolic or pictorial scripts.
And the runes in Cyprus are Greek. They came with the Greeks from Anatolia.
So you have already told something that is not true.
The runes near Ankara are Celtic 4th century. In fact, there are also Turkmen runes. They are from the 9-10th century, but of Mongolian origin, and come from north of the Caspian Sea.
You bend everything to suit your needs. That is not science.
Get used to it, the Turkmen only arrived in the 11th century.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

I was going to use quotes but it just became too messy.

1. A language's classification as agglutinative does not make it Turkic.  It does not provide proof of a genetic relationship.  Languages can change to become more or less agglutinative.
   
   
2. No, we do not have enough information about Etruscan to establish relationships with today's languages.  We have enough information to determine with a high degree of certainty which languages it is not closely related to.  But we cannot connect it with any existing language families.  We certainly cannot connect it with Turkic languages because written records of Turkic languages are far too modern.
   
   
3. I don't think you understand how much effort and evidence is required to connect far-flung languages into one macro-family.  It's not as simple as saying they are agglutinative, and that you've found similar words.  There has to be regular systemic correspondences, showing consistent phonological changes from the ancestor language to the daughter languages.  Extensive work was done on this to classify the Indo-European family, including the status of Hittite.  Way more extensive effort and evidence would be required to connect Turkic with Etruscan or Sumerian because any common ancestor would be much older than Proto-Indo-European.  And again - you don't have any ancient Turkic texts to help you with that problem. 
   
   In this thread and that other thread, you rubbished the work done to establish the Indo-European family and Hittite's place within it, yet asserted with far less evidence that Hittite was Turkic.  That is pseudolinguistics.
   
   
4. Let's say somehow someone was able to establish a relationship between Etruscan, Sumerian, and Turkic languages that was taken seriously by a majority of linguists.  That would not necessarily make Etruscan and Sumerian Turkic any more than the classification of Indo European makes Russian a Germanic language.  They would be cousins in the same macrolanguage family that would be given some name like Eurasiatic. 
   
   Your posts display some odd concept about "claiming" languages.  I'll repeat.  Etruscan (barring links with Rhaetic and Lemnian) and Sumerian are not classed as language isolates because linguists thought "if our Indo European mother family can't have them, then no one can!" (Did they have an off day when it came to Ancient Egyptian?).  They are classed as language isolates because there is no even remotely convincing evidence of their relation to current language families.  Unlike Ancient Egyptian.
   
   
5. No, it is not "linguistically highly probable" that the "Paleolithic continuity theory" is true.  It is classed as a fringe theory.  That means the exact opposite to what you claim.  If it were linguistically highly probable, it would be part of academic consensus.  But it isn't.  It doesn't even have the status of a respectable but unproven hypothesis that divides academics. 
   
   
6. Saying that writing is most likely the product of nomadic cultures flies in the face of what we know about the invention of writing systems.  What you are describing - carving marks on rocks - is not what linguists call writing.  It is more like proto-writing, and I cannot see the relevance of this at all here. 
   
   
7. Nothing in this thread should be described as being "in the name of science".  In the name of Isaac Newton, I beg you to stop saying your approach is scientific.  You haven't expressed the slightest doubt about your Voynichese solution being correct nor shown any self-scrutiny around your methodology.  This is pseudoscience.
   

I will also answer your questions...

[quote="Aga Tentakulus" pid='60471' dateline='1720631744']
[Distinguish between drawings, symbols and writing.
For example, wavy lines can mean water. Regardless of the form, it is not writing.
Only when different symbols follow one another in a row can we speak of writing, as it explains a certain intention.
This symbolic writing has developed in sedentary cultures. The best known are probably the Egyptian hieroglyphs. 3300 BC.
But the Mayan or Chinese hieroglyphs are also symbolic or pictorial scripts.
And the runes in Cyprus are Greek. They came with the Greeks from Anatolia.
So you have already told something that is not true.
The runes near Ankara are Celtic 4th century. In fact, there are also Turkmen runes. They are from the 9-10th century, but of Mongolian origin, and come from north of the Caspian Sea.
You bend everything to suit your needs. That is not science.
Get used to it, the Turkmen only arrived in the 11th century.]



Dear Tentakulus

Neither I nor other researchers who touch upon the same details reflect historical events in a distorted way. We are trying to put the inconsistent historical and linguistic explanations, which are far from reality and written with personal inferences and interpretations, into order as they should be.

In pre-writing periods (early periods when there was a need to describe topics or events with signs), established cultures on the way to the discovery of writing did not probably feel the need to contribute to this discovery, because it is unlikely that people living side by side felt the need to invent writing while they could communicate verbally. However small nomadic groups had to record information on land because they were always geographically distant from people who spoke their language. People in this situation needed to transfer/transmit information to a remote person. This is why nomads invented writing. In other words, the settled people did not need to invent writing because they could communicate verbally with those next to them, but since the nomads moved in families and small groups, the only way to convey information to their distant relatives was to produce signs with expressive value. If you have difficulty using your logic to perceive and understand this detail and cannot understand the difference, there is no need to tire yourself. In this case, it's okay if you continue to believe in the fairy tales you know, but unfortunately, the facts are not like the fairy tales you were told.

I don't expect you to understand these because you are not yet at the point of understanding even simple VM-specific proofs. To understand that a finding is truly evidence, it is necessary to first examine the data presented free of prejudgment.

Egyptian Civilization used Hieroglyphic writing. The Sumerian civilization, on the other hand, used a script called cuneiform that offered some first syllabic signs too, and the roots of this script were older than Egyptian Hieroglyphs. Sumerian script experienced its first phase when cuneiform symbols and shapes were printed on clay tablets as tokens representing certain items. Some scientists take the Sumerian script back to much older periods, and it is possible to say that these signs included an increasing number of syllabic sounds in the relatively more recent periods of this language.

So, Sumerian writings are generally considered older than Egyptian writings. The earliest examples of Sumerian cuneiform date back to around 3400 BCE, whereas Egyptian hieroglyphs appear around 3200 BCE.
{See; The earliest examples of Sumerian cuneiform date back to around 3400 BCE (Glassner, Jean-Jacques. "The Invention of Cuneiform: Writing in Sumer." Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003).}

What you are talking about as Celtic writing from the 4th century near Ankara is not Celtic writing anyway. To determine if such writing near the Ankara area is genuinely Celtic and what evidence supports this claim, you would need relevant linguistic & archaeological proofs which are not been invented yet.

Additionally, those who say that Turkish Rune signs are of Mongolian origin are also making things up. These are Turkish Runic writings, and Mongols and Turks are close people who are related to each other. Turkish and Mongolian articulated language roots are also the same.

The Cypriot Syllabary script is not Greek because it was not possible to read this script correctly in Greek. However, imaginary history has been written based on many fabrications.

Various ancient civilizations influenced Cyprus, leading to diverse languages and scripts. The Cypro-Syllabic Script, known as the Cyprus Syllabic Script, represents the Eteo-Cypriot language and was used between the 10th and 2nd centuries BC. Comparison is made between the Cypro-Syllabic Script and the Turkish Runic Script in terms of syllabic nature and writing direction. The study by M. Turgay Kürüm analyzes and reads inscriptions in Turkish through a comparative linguistic approach.

[quote="tavie" pid='60472' dateline='1720638384']
I was going to use quotes but it just became too messy.
[

1. A language's classification as agglutinative does not make it Turkic.  It does not provide proof of a genetic relationship.  Languages can change to become more or less agglutinative.
   
   
2. No, we do not have enough information about Etruscan to establish relationships with today's languages.  We have enough information to determine with a high degree of certainty which languages it is not closely related to.  But we cannot connect it with any existing language families.  We certainly cannot connect it with Turkic languages because written records of Turkic languages are far too modern.
   
   
3. I don't think you understand how much effort and evidence is required to connect far-flung languages into one macro-family.  It's not as simple as saying they are agglutinative, and that you've found similar words.  There has to be regular systemic correspondences, showing consistent phonological changes from the ancestor language to the daughter languages.  Extensive work was done on this to classify the Indo-European family, including the status of Hittite.  Way more extensive effort and evidence would be required to connect Turkic with Etruscan or Sumerian because any common ancestor would be much older than Proto-Indo-European.  And again - you don't have any ancient Turkic texts to help you with that problem. 
   
   In this thread and that other thread, you rubbished the work done to establish the Indo-European family and Hittite's place within it, yet asserted with far less evidence that Hittite was Turkic.  That is pseudolinguistics.
   
   
4. Let's say somehow someone was able to establish a relationship between Etruscan, Sumerian, and Turkic languages that was taken seriously by a majority of linguists.  That would not necessarily make Etruscan and Sumerian Turkic any more than the classification of Indo European makes Russian a Germanic language.  They would be cousins in the same macrolanguage family that would be given some name like Eurasiatic. 
   
   Your posts display some odd concept about "claiming" languages.  I'll repeat.  Etruscan (barring links with Rhaetic and Lemnian) and Sumerian are not classed as language isolates because linguists thought "if our Indo European mother family can't have them, then no one can!" (Did they have an off day when it came to Ancient Egyptian?).  They are classed as language isolates because there is no even remotely convincing evidence of their relation to current language families.  Unlike Ancient Egyptian.
   
   
5. No, it is not "linguistically highly probable" that the "Paleolithic continuity theory" is true.  It is classed as a fringe theory.  That means the exact opposite to what you claim.  If it were linguistically highly probable, it would be part of academic consensus.  But it isn't.  It doesn't even have the status of a respectable but unproven hypothesis that divides academics. 
   
   
6. Saying that writing is most likely the product of nomadic cultures flies in the face of what we know about the invention of writing systems.  What you are describing - carving marks on rocks - is not what linguists call writing.  It is more like proto-writing, and I cannot see the relevance of this at all here. 
   
   
7. Nothing in this thread should be described as being "in the name of science".  In the name of Isaac Newton, I beg you to stop saying your approach is scientific.  You haven't expressed the slightest doubt about your Voynichese solution being correct nor shown any self-scrutiny around your methodology.  This is pseudoscience. ]
   

Dear Tavie,

A language's classification as agglutinative does not make it Turkic but it shows that language has no direct relationship with IE languages. But it indicates that it is in the same agglutinative structure as Turkish for sure. For this reason, it is important not to confuse the concepts.

Genetic studies, archaeological studies, linguistic studies, and compilation of historical data are separate disciplines carried out by separate experts. However, if all of these point to the same people and language as the closest relative of an ancient language group owner who lived in Central Italy (which is exactly what happened), then ignoring these overlaps is equivalent to leaving the field of science and wandering in the field of faith.

To see the connections found by comparative linguistics between the Etruscan language and the Turkish language, you must first find and read the articles and books of the academics who wrote them. Linguist Prof. Dr. Firudin A. Celilov explains and demonstrates the ties of the Etruscan language with the Turkish language. You can understand this if you obtain and read his book called "Dokuz-Bitik", which consists of 9 volumes covering these subjects. Additionally, linguist and historian Arif Cengiz Erman has written books on this subject. Linguist Prof. Dr. Çingiz Karaşarlı, Fazıl Latıpov, and Adile Ayla wrote about these topics. Apart from these, other researchers have also shown linguistic overlaps, but if you want to follow the latest scientific developments on these issues, you can start to gain information by reading the research of these people. If you have no time, do not read Prof. Celilov's 9 volumes of related books. Some of these articles are even very short but strong and were also published by the Turkish Language Association such as "ETRÜSK YAZITLARI KONUŞMAĞA BAŞLIYOR" by Çingiz KARAŞARLI.

The Italian linguist, whose books and articles I have previously recommended, is not the only person writing on these subjects. Many linguists present these overlaps with evidence, and ignoring them is not a solution.

The oldest known English inscriptions, the Ruthwell Cross and the Franks Casket were written in the 8th century CE. The oldest known German inscriptions, the Pietroassa inscription and the Bergakker inscription, date back to the 4th or 5th century CE. The oldest known "French" (if there is any proof it is French) inscriptions, the Gallo-Latin inscriptions, were written in the 1st century BCE. Based on "well-known European academic sources", the oldest known Turkish script is the Orkhon script, which was used in inscriptions from the 6th century CE in Central Asia (even if you say that the Sumerian, Etruscan, and the Cyprus K. syllabic Runes are not Turkish). However, The inscriptions found on the Golden Man statue, also known as "Altın Elbiseli Adam", are thought to date back to the 5th century BCE and have been found in the Turkish Runes inscription in the same kurgan. 

The civilization in question is the Hatti Civilization, and the name Hittite was given by Westerners in modern times, and/or triple and quadruple word repetitions are known in their writings. Hatti language is not an Indo-European language.

The exact number of words and inscriptions found in Sumerian writing tablets is difficult to determine as it encompasses a vast number of artifacts, but it is estimated that there are thousands of inscriptions with a lexicon of thousands of words.
Linguist and historian Arif Cengiz Erman has shown more than 1300 words common between the Sumerian language and Turkish, including organ names, verb words, and nouns. But as I said, the field of history and linguistics is dominated by politics, apart from being scientific, and for this reason, your academies tend to ignore contrary findings. Of course, it can be thought that this trend has some kind of racism and hatred at its roots.

Saying that writing is most likely the product of nomadic cultures flies in the face of what you know about the invention of writing systems for sure.  Yes, we are describing - that carving tamga and rune marks on rocks is what linguists must call writing. 

We showed that we read VM manuscripts with our reading methods and the results of comparative linguistics studies to linguist Turcologists in academies and international symposiums. Our articles were published in the journals and booklets of relevant organizations.

All these studies were carried out under the supervision of academic scientific committees. We have already shown the evidence, and the evidence does not need to be proven again. There is no Turkish language expert yet who claims that what we present as evidence cannot be linguistic evidence. I don't think it will happen in the future.

Those who think that the Etruscan language does not have much written material to match it with other languages are either completely ignorant or completely uninformed. Because the Etruscan writing corpus contains approximately 13,000 different words recorded in around 10,000 different archaeological findings. And Etruscan writing dates back to around the 8th century BCE.

However, how old are the oldest known writings of the most prominent civilizations known in Europe today? And how many words have your “Super Mario Linguists” read and recognized as, say, French, English, or German? (It is not often possible to come across anyone who questions whether they read it correctly, anyway!)

The oldest known English inscription, the Ruthwell Cross contains around 120 words, whereas the Franks Casket has several shorter runic inscriptions, totaling around 80 words. The oldest known German inscription, the Pietroassa inscription contains approximately 15 words, while the Bergakker inscription has around 20 words only. The oldest known French inscriptions are the Gallo-Latin inscriptions (specific word counts on these inscriptions vary) but some notable ones contain as few as 5 to 10 words only. However, the "academically" oldest known Turkish script is the Orkhon scripts with the longer inscriptions containing several hundred words, typically ranging from around 700 to 1,000 words.

Now, if you want to say that "there is not enough material to compare Turkish and Etruscan inscriptions". Of course, we can only laugh at these prejudice-filled and poorly-informed thoughts.  If you don't mind, talk about how the findings and evidence I put forward between VM and Turkish can be refuted. Or maybe you might want to answer the questions I asked, I don't know.

(10-07-2024, 11:32 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....  
 Now, if you want to say that "there is not enough material to compare Turkish and Etruscan inscriptions".  Of course, we can only laugh at these prejudice-filled and poorly-informed thoughts. 

That's it, I'm off. Whatever I say, it's not going to make a difference.  There's an awful lot of projecting going on in many of your statements about me or others.  And it's clearly never going to change, so have a good time laughing.

[quote="tavie" pid='60473' dateline='1720639845']
I will also answer your questions...
[spoiler]
[quote="Ahmet Ardıç" pid='60470' dateline='1720629723']

Dear Tavie,

Now I answer your comments in green pen:

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?  You need to demonstrate that the way it happens in Voynichese is the way it happens in Turkish.  Going through all the parts where this occurs and providing sentences that wouldn't have been unusual for Turkish syntax would be a start. Is there such a language as Voynichese? In my article published (at a symposium with an international scientific committee of linguists) on how to read page 33v, I made alphabet transcription mapping for a full page. Then I showed which words this pairing corresponded to in today's language (so much so that some of the words had never changed their phonetic structure). Then I found the words in Turkish dictionaries and gave references to them. Then, I showed that the sentence structure of Turkish and the sentence structures we presented in these readings overlap. Additionally, in the same article, I showed with a statistical approach that structural situations specific to Turkish are also present in VM texts. Now I ask you, which different method do you think is applied in linguistics? Stop making the same meaningless repetitions like nonsense and a broken record and have your linguists interpret what I wrote in my article. Because I understand from the question you asked in response to my question that you are unaware of what approaches comparative linguistics uses to read similar texts.

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?  It's not uncommon for languages to have certain phonemes that rarely/never occur at the start or end of words.  Voynichese's behaviour seems extremely excessive.  You need to demonstrate a correlation between the precise behaviour and what is seen in Turkish, and that this is a better correlation than other languages.  A good start would also be explaining what is behind line patterns. Correlation is a statistical measure that describes the extent to which two variables are related. It quantifies the degree to which changes in one variable predict changes in another. The correlation coefficient, typically denoted as "r", ranges from -1 to 1. A value of 1 indicates a perfect positive correlation, -1 indicates a perfect negative correlation, and 0 indicates no correlation. In this example, the correlation value r is exactly +1. What other correlation are you talking about?

See this; The text appearing in the Voynich manuscript (VM) follows many Turkish phonetic and morphological structures. For example, there are no words ending in /b/, /c/, /d/, /g in both the VM texts and the Turkish structure. Likewise, there are no words starting with /h/, /j/, /m/, /n/, /v/, /ğ/ in either of them. What could we write if we were to express the situation in which exactly the same sounds are not in the same part of the words in both languages in the form of correlation?

There is a perfect correlation between the phonetic structures of the VM text and the Turkish language in that:
1. No words end with the sounds /b/, /c/, /d/, /g/.
2. No words start with the sounds /h/, /j/, /m/, /n/, /v/, /ğ/.
Isn't it? If you cannot understand by statistics, mathematics or logic that a correlation has been presented here and that this is a perfect correspondence, go find a teacher and he will explain to you what correlation is and what it is not. Because the person who would say there is no correlation here either does not know the definition of these concepts or has low intelligence. If you are a smart man, I suggest you not to ask such ridiculous questions that will make you look funny again.

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?   Not sure why this is relevant when we haven't been able to identify which glyphs are vowels and which are consonants. 
Your question here;

"Why is this relevant when we haven't been able to identify which glyphs are vowels and which are consonants?"
This is important in terms of comparative linguistics to understand whether there are overlaps in the phonetic structure of the compared words. For example, if there is no word recorded in the history of the Indo-European language in which five or ten vowels or consonants are written side by side, then you choose one of the following;
A- You minimize or eliminate the possibility that the VM texts are Indo-European.
B- You bring to the fore the possibility that multiple text signs coming together actually represent a single sound. As a matter of fact, for example, letters appearing in the form CC make the sound G, and letters II together make the sound Ğ.
Can you understand this?

4- How many different text images/letters are there in VM texts?  You've already had this answer from others.  We don't know. 
I wrote that there are between 340 and 360 text images. Moreover, I am the first to write this. Now explain from whom I got this answer. Because now there is an accusation here and you are implying that I stole someone else's answer. In this case, I expect you to prove what you said immediately. If you can't prove it, apologize, and if you can't do both, don't read my comments again because I don't want to deal with people who are not serious, inconsistent, and liars.

5- Is it possible that the VM texts could not be read due to incorrect transcription texts made so far?
Inability to know if we are parsing the glyphs correctly has long been suggested as an obstacle to reading the text.  It has already been said in this thread that EVA was not created as an accurate representation of whatever Voynichese's plaintext characters are.  It had no pretensions of doing so - it simply makes it easier to talk about the text.  It is likely there are more individual characters than EVA sets out, but we don't know how much more. 

That is not the only reason we have not been able to read the manuscript, though.  A bigger problem is that most who engage it with it almost immediately believe they have solved it, and that's the end of the road for them. That's a lot of potential manpower gone.
At least you seem to be starting to understand that you won't get any results with EVA. This is a kind of progress.

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?  It wouldn't at all surprise me if some - or indeed many - glyphs are actually syllabic.  There may also be homophones.  But while I think that - if it is not meaningless - there may turn out to be many more characters than EVA has, it would take a lot of persuading for me to accept there are over 300.
Did you say anything, or after writing so much, I don't quite understand what you said, but it doesn't matter. Let's assume this was due to my lack of English.

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?)  I feel probability has been misused on this thread.   And plenty of other solvers find words in the dictionary or Google translate.  I haven't seen any good reason to see your solution as any better than the hundred + other solutions.  I haven't seen these hundred sentences you have translated.  I apply the same conclusion that I apply to pretty much all other solutions, which is that if your system worked, we would have seen multiple clear, coherent page translations without the need to resort to arguments that more help is needed, other dialects/languages are involved, etc. 

That doesn't, of course, mean it isn't Turkish.
You said that; "plenty of other solvers find words in the dictionary or Google translate." What are you talking about? I didn't ask a question about others, so you are telling me about others.

I find every word I read in the dictionary and show it. I explain many words by separating them with their roots and suffixes. Doesn't linguistics follow the same path?
When there is a single word that I cannot find or explain in the dictionary, even if I have read all the remaining words of the sentence in which that word is used and found them in dictionaries, I do not come forward with a single article or claim to read about them.
Forget 100 sentences and 1000 words. I understand that you do not have sufficient knowledge to evaluate linguistic comparison methods in terms of my article. If you could understand that even one of the 112 drawing word matches whose phonetic value remained unchanged in 600 years was detected, you would understand what this information means at the linguistic level.

(11-07-2024, 12:37 AM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(10-07-2024, 11:32 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....  
 Now, if you want to say that "there is not enough material to compare Turkish and Etruscan inscriptions".  Of course, we can only laugh at these prejudice-filled and poorly-informed thoughts. 

[That's it, I'm off. Whatever I say, it's not going to make a difference.  There's an awful lot of projecting going on in many of your statements about me or others.  And it's clearly never going to change, so have a good time laughing.]

Dear Tavie, 

If you want to make something different, firstly try to keep your statements inside the VM subject only, but not from another person or myself. Because the main subject is not another person or me or you. The subject is my articles about VM-Turkish relations based on indicating proofs only.

Let's just try to talk it out, and for me to do that, first stop telling me about other people's work and focus on what I wrote about VM. You had the insinuation that I was copying or stealing things from others. First of all, if you have not put forward such an idea in vain, show me your evidence and show me what I stole from whom and which information I copied and presented as my own. I don't think you can do this. If you cannot do this, do not contact me again, because it is obvious that you do not know to discuss a subject in linguistic detail within the VM topic.

Maybe you'll learn something today.

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

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

And the Celtic runes are documented in writing.
In the 4th century, the Eastern Roman emperor commissioned 2000 Celtic mercenaries to secure the border east of Ankara.
The mercenaries moved there with their families. It is estimated that there were around 12,000 Celts. The land was made available to them and they settled down.
Their mission. To protect the land for as long as possible until the imperial troops arrived.
Those who thought they were only dealing with peasants at the time did not have good prospects when they were suddenly faced with 2,000 battle-hardened mercenaries.
So it is written.


And by the way.
I can count Turkish words with double consonants on one hand.
There are " Dikkat, Sürreyya (my wife's name, also means Orion) and pizza. Do you know another one?

(11-07-2024, 12:44 AM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.2. No words start with the sounds /h/, /j/, /m/, /n/, /v/, /ğ/.

Let's not forget /k/. Can you name a "Turkish" language / dialect that has no word starting with /k/, /m/, nor /n/ ?