[You introduce everywehere new polemic themes that have nothing to do with the main theme of this thread, I suggest you to open new threads for them, otherwise there will be an incresing number of sub-debates.
Your behaviour is like a teacher that teaches a lesson to us, your classroom. This is not the case. We are not your students willingly to learn your lesson. We are here to point out the weaknesses of your theory. Your repeated argument that we dont undertand is a very poor one.
The use of your unproved theory on VM to debunk another theory on VM goes against scientific method.
Languages dissapear mainly by conquest and/or cultural assimilation of the speakers, not for phisical extinguish of their speakers.]
Dear Sali,
It may be possible to assimilate the language of local groups whose population is small and-or whose culture is not widespread and not dominant.
However, it is not possible to assimilate all the members of deep-rooted civilizations that have lived in vast geographies for hundreds or thousands of years, established cities and migrated in all directions.
In other words, this argument is also an illogical thought (for civilizations such as the Sumerian civilization and-or the Hittite civilization) that is thought to be scientific.
Irrational predictions have no place in science.
But you are right about other things. This discussion is moving to a different dimension, and it was unnecessary.
Thanks for your comment
[Hittite is Indo-European - not only are large parts of the vocabulary distinctly Indo-European as are the declension and verb conjugation paradigms, but it even proved right the hypothesis of the laryngeals, as they seem to have been still present in Hittite in some forms.]
Dear Battler,
You are repeating the common teaching of linguistics today. But the Hittite language is misjudged by many linguist.
Transcriptions made for the Hittite language are in need of radical correction. They do not know the structure of languages that think with the Indo-European language and are completely established with root suffix relations. They think the world is the same color as the color of the glasses in their eyes. They have their own language in their brains and they see it everywhere.
(02-04-2022, 06:38 AM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A government or kingdom may perish, but if the people who speak a language to the last person do not die, that language will not perish. The successors of the Sumerian and Hittite language must be alive today. The misdirection of people can not call as history and linguistics. Now show a single historian and linguist to prove that the Sumerian people and the Hittite people died or were killed (without continuing their reproduction) to the last member. In other words, when there is no material evidence of their extinction, on what basis, how you can write that Sumerian language did not survive and change in time?
I'll respond to the rest later but this kind of comment makes me think you have very little knowledge of linguistics. Only a minority of known language deaths have been caused by the extinction of a people. The vast majority of language deaths in history have occurred when speakers abandon their native tongue, either voluntarily or through varying degrees of coercion, for a new language that is becoming increasingly dominant, with the result that their children do not speak the indigenous language, and their grandchildren may not even understand it. Over the years, this leads to the death of the language.
For example, the Latin speaking Romans conquered Etruscan towns but did not wipe out all Etruscan speakers. Some notable later Roman aristocrats had or are likely to have had Etruscan ancestry. But with the increasing domination of Rome and growing importance of knowing Latin, more and more Etruscan children learned Latin as their first language. Etruscan gradually became a literary language, and then eventually even that link was broken, and we are only able to "read" it because of the alphabet. It is a dead, extinct language, but no mass extinction of its speakers was required to make that happen.
Better than this wandering discussion would be a focused demonstration. Take a specified portion of VMs text and show how it should be translated.
The text that I suggest is the outer ring segment from VMs White Aries.
And with the reference to f57v, if certain interpretations are being assumed, there are three different examples of cultural to structural correspondence in the first five glyphs of what is known as the 4 by 17 sequence to be considered. The problem with VMs glyphs is their linguistic interpretation. According to various examples of cultural usage, a given symbol may have multiple interpretations.
Such is the case with the fifth symbol in the sequence, an inverted 'v' shape. EVA: v.
In Greek this symbol is lambda. And in Greek the first symbol of the VMs sequence is properly shaped and properly placed in that alpha-numeric sequence to be interpreted as the letter omicron. EVA: o.
Using the medieval numerals of Typus Arithmetica, the fifth VMs symbol looks like the number '7'. And in this interpretation, it is properly placed in relation to the second symbol, which represents the number '4'. EVA: l
In Roman numerals, this inverted 'v' is an inverted representation of '5' in the fifth place.
Three different cultural interpretations of one VMs symbol. Each supported by structural data relevant to that culture. They all tend to be more numerical, rather than alphabetic. How might such complex correspondence occur? And why?
[quote="tavie" pid='49753' dateline='1648914874']
Dear Tavie,
Widespread public and academic views on this subject are illogical and inconsistent. Yes, as you mentioned, it is possible for people to change their language and forget it. But the languages of civilizations such as the Sumerian and Etruscan have been able to partially transfer word residues up to this day by evolving. In this case, we cannot say that these languages have completely disappeared.
Some words of these languages survive in other languages today, having undergone partial phonetic changes. They live in languages with their modern relatives, with a greater number of inherited vocabulary.
Because of the structure of these languages, the root words are usually monosyllabic and they change their phonetic structure very little. In this way, about 2000 words from the Sumerian language live in Turkish. Only Linguist Arif Cengiz Erman matched about 1300 of them. These numbers have increased over time and will continue to increase as reading studies continue.
But there are minor errors made in the Sumerian alphabet transcription. I detected them. I can say that this number will increase in the future for sure.
A large number of words from the Etruscan language are also available in our language.
Many texts from the Etruscan civilization can still be read due to the Turkey Turkish vocabulary. To follow them at least you need to be aware of the content of the books and articles of the linguist "Prof. Dr. Firudin Celilov".
In other words, the information that "Sumerian language has not related/connected to any living language" is wrong and it will be corrected. There are many mistakes made by linguists, and these will become clear in time.
In other words, it is wrong to say that some of the old words in the languages of these ancient civilizations are completely dead today, even if they have undergone partial phonetic changes. So, they are partially living in the cognate languages.
We read and draw inferences from the articles of different scholars, and I personally study Etruscan texts and Sumerian texts that are said to have been read. I also know what is written on these subjects in the West. There is no point in repeating the Western view to me. Because I've already weighed the differing views on the scales and, by examining the evidence, I've taken the heavier one.
If I had trusted every piece of information that was put forward as Western linguistics, I would not have taken the step to do the key transcription for Voynich texts.
First, we will show real Voynich history and its Turkish language content. Then I will continue to write articles, about how history and linguistics have been deliberately or unintentionally distorted.
Thanks
Dear R. Sale,
Yes, I think this discussion will not go too far here today or tomorrow.
You said, "
Take a specified portion of VMs text and show how it should be translated."
We are already doing exactly this according to our own working schedule and planning. We have already given examples of some readings and sentence readings under a certain heading on this pages.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
to
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Please share your comments about all of them first and than we'll share our further reading with under same page.
There is little point in moving forward without positive or negative feedback.
We are already preparing what you want for some Turkology departments. Moreover, it is wiser to write them in Turkish and send them to the Turcology departments of universities, and I hope that many academies will begin to announce the results in writing over time. This work will be announced by the academies after a certain period of time, similar to the collapse of dominoes.
I look forward to your comments of acceptance or rejection for the readings. But I expect you to write the reason about rejection scientifically, exactly as you expect from my side. If you agree with the overlaps we've shown, write that down as well so we get positive feedback to move forward.
In other words, under the other title, we can continue to write why Voynich is in Turkish or why not Turkish. Of course, this kind of sharing opinion process should not be one-sided because it has no taste.
Kind regards,
Dear Ahmet,
in no way was I intending not to be nice.
I quoted you lterally.
Yes, there were a few more words: "... here for us" but I don't see that this makes a big difference.
In any case, I am not talking linguistics. I am talking statistics.
Now quite a few people think that statistics are in principle useless, but please keep in mind that modern linguists work very intensively with statistics. There are so many tools, that it is extremely powerful.
Now, if there is any proposal that the Voynich MS can be translated using a certain language, then several criteria have to be met. Note that all of them have to be met.
1. The language has to be correctly understood. It has to be sufficiently well known to the person who is proposing the solution. Now I don't know anything about modern or ancient versions of Turkish and cognate languages. So, I am not making any statements about that.
2. The statistics of the plain text, the transformation and the Voynich text have to match. In this part I have considerable experience.
So I am not arguing about point 1, I am arguing about point 2.
A criterium for accepting a translation was already proposed by D'Imperio, and similarly by Tiltman. (Note that this is not the only criterium, but one that she found very important).
It says that the solution has to demonstrate how the peculiar statistics of the Voynich MS text arise. What causes them. This means that the proposer also has to be aware of these and understand these.
Now I am not even arguing that your theory is wrong. What I am saying, is that it is not nearly ripe enough to speak about having evidence of being right, or mathematical proof. It is really at the level of a working theory.
I have not yet seen any longer section of plain text from you. Perhaps it exists, but I have not seen it.
What could convince me, or make me very interested, is if you did exactly what I proposed or requested. And I am sure that this would make a lot more people seriously interested.
(03-04-2022, 09:24 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Now quite a few people think that statistics are in principle useless, but please keep in mind that modern linguists work very intensively with statistics.
It blows my mind just a little, that anyone could think that statistics could and would offer
no valuable clues about the VMs. Not only is linguistics heavily indebted to statistics, but so are cryptography, information science, semiotics, symbology, history, archaeology, physical and chemical material analysis — most of the fields of inquiry that offer helpful potentially helpful tools and case file precedents for approaching this mystery. My only regret since picking up this hobby is not paying much, much more attention in statistics class in graduate school. So this kind of sentiment is always a real,
Uhh... do you even surf, brah? kind of moment for me.
Just because no one has cracked the mystery yet with statics, code processing, or some other kind of mathematics, it does not logically follow that these tools will not or cannot crack it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Cranks who approach the VMs and downplay the value of statistics in analyzing it are usually, in my experience, crying sour grapes. They're not knowledgeable about statistics or good with them, and don't care to become so. They resent the fact that VMs researchers who are good with statistics get their ideas taken seriously, but researchers who bring very different kinds of talents and experience to the table, not necessarily.
(03-04-2022, 09:24 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Dear Ahmet,
in no way was I intending not to be nice.
I quoted you lterally.
Yes, there were a few more words: "... here for us" but I don't see that this makes a big difference.
In any case, I am not talking linguistics. I am talking statistics.
Now quite a few people think that statistics are in principle useless, but please keep in mind that modern linguists work very intensively with statistics. There are so many tools, that it is extremely powerful.
Now, if there is any proposal that the Voynich MS can be translated using a certain language, then several criteria have to be met. Note that all of them have to be met.
1. The language has to be correctly understood. It has to be sufficiently well known to the person who is proposing the solution. Now I don't know anything about modern or ancient versions of Turkish and cognate languages. So, I am not making any statements about that.
2. The statistics of the plain text, the transformation and the Voynich text have to match. In this part I have considerable experience.
So I am not arguing about point 1, I am arguing about point 2.
A criterium for accepting a translation was already proposed by D'Imperio, and similarly by Tiltman. (Note that this is not the only criterium, but one that she found very important).
It says that the solution has to demonstrate how the peculiar statistics of the Voynich MS text arise. What causes them. This means that the proposer also has to be aware of these and understand these.
Now I am not even arguing that your theory is wrong. What I am saying, is that it is not nearly ripe enough to speak about having evidence of being right, or mathematical proof. It is really at the level of a working theory.
I have not yet seen any longer section of plain text from you. Perhaps it exists, but I have not seen it.
What could convince me, or make me very interested, is if you did exactly what I proposed or requested. And I am sure that this would make a lot more people seriously interested.
Dear Rene,
I reply to your comment on this page on the other page.
Please we can continue the discussion of whether it is Turkish or not, on this page: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Thanks