(07-08-2020, 07:12 PM)Pepper Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't think it's a coincidence, but I think your method includes this multi-layered alphabet because it has to; if you don't give yourself so much freedom, your translations don't work. At the same time, real language doesn't work like that - it has to be mostly unambiguous and repeatable because it's meant for two-way communication, where the reader must understand what the author intended. If there are too many degrees of freedom, a language becomes meaningless. 

(07-08-2020, 03:02 PM)Pepper Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-08-2020, 02:33 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That is exactly the point. It is the same with Gerard Cheshire's theory and so many other translation theories. The degrees of freedom in interpretation of a given portion of text means that one can inevitably find a translation which very loosely fits the context of the drawings albeit often without any grammar. I think it was referred to this kind of approach to the translation generating a "word salad" of text which the author can interpret as he/she sees fit.

Indeed. From what I understand so far, the Ardics have the following degrees of freedom:

1. The author used multiple dialects, so a word can be translated into any of half a dozen forms
2. As shown in the YouTube video, one glyph can have 7+ sounds assigned to it
3. The author used "poetic" language that is "rhythmically matching" along with some kind of very clever word play
4. The author encoded information in an acrostic down the first line of every page
5. The author also used some Latin / Greek / other words

Seems to me if you take a five-glyph vord you could easily find 50+ interpretations from which you can choose to construct your sentence.

For example, Ahmet, you claim that the first word on the eighth line of f4r is "baby pomegranate." Why does the author write about baby pomegranates on f1v, f2r, f3r, and so many others? I believe your answer will be that the vord means baby pomegranate on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and something else on those other pages. Probably a different meaning on each page. This isn't an isolated case; the text is full of repetition. I don't find your explanations of homophones, roots/suffixes, and the author's incredible linguistic prowess to be satisfactory - even when we take them all together.

I also find it very difficult to believe that this author wrote, in an invented script, a 200-page manuscript that 

a) includes acrostic codes
b) is poetic and rhythmically matching
c) makes grammatical sense, both in the acrostic code and in the filler text
d) does all this in two distinct 'languages', Currier A and B

I'm a published fiction author, and I write and edit nonfiction as a profession, in one of the world's most flexible languages - English. And I know I couldn't do what the Ardics claim this mysterious author has done. Not a chance. I could perhaps do a page with a lot of hard work, but 200? No.

(07-08-2020, 12:43 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: In other words, this alphabet is the situation specific alphabet to created only for VMS, which has been created with consisting of both the syllabic alphabet, the simple alphabet and the tamga-scripts and the numbers. For this reason, now we are reading a simple word in very different ways. 

For those who are interested in seeing examples of Tamga scripts, here is an article and some examples.


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

It is a somewhat pictographic script that includes characters similar to some of the very early Asian scripts. There are also quite a few circle-line characters.

(07-08-2020, 03:45 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-08-2020, 03:02 PM)Pepper Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Indeed. From what I understand so far, the Ardics have the following degrees of freedom:

1. The author used multiple dialects, so a word can be translated into any of half a dozen forms
2. One glyph can have 7+ sounds assigned to it
3. The author used "poetic" language that is "rhythmically matching" along with some kind of very clever word play
4. The author encoded information in an acrostic down the first line of every page
5. The author also used some Latin / Greek / other words

Seems to me if you take a five-glyph vord you could easily find 50+ interpretations from which you can choose to construct your sentence.

I think numbers 1, 2, 3, 5 could be said to essentially apply to Gerard Cheshire's theory. (Number 4 does not apply)

Cheshire's proto-romance theory draws on many European languages and non-European languages, that may not necessarily be romance languages, so point 1 applies; this is the most important parallel. In Cheshire's theory I believe that some Glyphs can have more than one sound, point 2. "Word salad" grammar free sentences, which can be interpreted in many ways, I think this is similar to point 3. Point 5 is in Cheshire's theory akin to point 1.

And your conclusion about the degrees of freedom in interpretation of a word also implies.

One thing I don't know if Ardic like Cheshire ignores spaces or places spaces where he sees fit.

I haven't studied lots of Voynich translation theories, so I am unable to comment on which other theories have the same problems, but my impression is that many have these kind of problems, where the degrees of freedom necessarily make it possible to construct many different translations from the text of the Voynich. Of course these multiple translations make it a very slow process for the decipherer to select their preferred translation, which they think best fits the imagery.

(07-08-2020, 06:04 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-08-2020, 04:59 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If someone who knows Old-Turkish does what you say, that will mean he/she will have already confirmed that the VMS was written in Turkish. Is not it?
So, even if any person does not translate it as like as same our translation, he/she will have approved our claim about that VMS written in Turkish language. In this case, can I say that you have accepted the Turkish content of VMS?

Dear Ahmet

I think you miss that people are exploring your hypothesis that the manuscript is written in old Turkish and what the logical consequences of your hypothesis are. That doesn't mean that they necessarily agree with your hypothesis just that to analyse that hypothesis they have to consider the implication of it being true.

I would argue that the methodology you apply could also be applied to many languages as other flawed theories are. When you give individual words many interpretations then it is easy to find an interpretation that appears to fit. This is just the same as Gerard Cheshire's theory.

Proving any Voynich translation theory is wrong is hard, the onus is on you to prove it is correct. It is true that people can demonstrate that an argument presented to show that the theory is correct, is flawed. Prove Gerard Cheshire's theory is wrong or the Hannig theory or the many other theories. The problem with these theories is that the arguments presented that they are correct are weak.

Best Wishes

(07-08-2020, 07:12 PM)Pepper Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-08-2020, 04:59 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1-) You say that;  "If you gave your translation system to someone knowledgeable in Old Turkish and they translated a page, they could come out with a completely different translation to you and your sons. So how can your claim ever be tested?"
In other words;
If someone who knows Old-Turkish does what you say, that will mean he/she will have already confirmed that the VMS was written in Turkish. Is not it? 
So, even if any person does not translate it as like as same our translation, he/she will have approved our claim about that VMS written in Turkish language. In this case, can I say that you have accepted the Turkish content of VMS?

Of course not. People have "translated" the VMS in the way you have into Ukrainian, Hebrew, Latin, 'Proto-Romance' and a whole bunch of other languages. All of their claims were subjected to the same scrutiny yours is getting, and none of them held up. Therefore I do not accept any claims made so far.

Quote:2-) This type of alphabet, where a single sign is mapped to multiple voices, is not a VMS-only case. There are other similar examples in Old Turkish.
As you think, a multiple-choice situation does not exist in every sentence in VMS. This is the case with some words in certain sentences. 

If you remember, I have given translation information about the single sentence in f-65r before on this page. For example, on this sentence, there is no argument that you mentioned in any word. It is clearly Turkish and there is no discussion for this sentence.

Please stop trying to manipulate people's words to suggest they agree with you. Quite frankly, you seem like an intelligent and nice man and this kind of thing - which you have done several times here and elsewhere - is beneath you. I think it's quite clear I don't believe the manuscript is in Turkish, so please don't put words into my mouth again.

Quote:I was discussed about many VMS sentences with a group of linguists. We discussed about some particular words in particular sentences, and different ideas were made about 'how to read some particular single word in our translation, and also the discussion was about their past meaning content'. However, in most that kind of particular word example, the linguists could not agree among themselves eithe.

That's very concerning, and rather undermines your claim below that your theory has been "confirmed by some linguists." Does that hold any weight when others can't repeat your method? At best, your support is cancelled out by the non-support.

Quote:As you know, some linguists still interpret differently that some sentence written by William Shakespeare too (which texts younger than VMS text in time). So, discussions on various ancient inscriptions of European languages are currently continuing, why do you expect from us to give you all an indisputable result on VMS?

If the VMS is ever decoded/translated I'm sure there will be parts that will remain obscure or at least unclear. But the real translation/decoding will be repeatable and widely accepted among experts in the applicable fields. You haven't published your full method yet but the problems I'm raising here suggest your method is not repeatable and is not widely accepted even among people who are privy to the full details. This is why we're asking you questions and then following up on your responses.

Quote:3-) You know that, studies on VMS have been continuing about for last 100 years. A single clear and indisputable sentence was not read in any language. We read this word (SAM/SAĞN) in different ways according to ATA transcription. But at the same time, we showed that all the different readings have their matching counterparts in Turkish. We show all of the multiple options that suit. That is, if a word is read differently than at once, we find all these readings in dictionaries and show them

Well, the thing is, several other people would claim that they have translated many "clear and indisputable sentences." They're all wrong, but they believe in their translations just as you do. And me and others (like Mark) are seeing similarities in their claims and yours, though I also think yours has more merit than previous claims in some areas.  

Quote:As I said, this issue does not apply to every word written in VMS. However, some words can be read in a different way and all of these pronunciation variants are also in Turkish. Do you think such a situation could be a coincidence? Of course not. For this reason, we claim that the author of VMS deliberately made this alphabet in this way. This is exactly what the author were wanted.

I don't think it's a coincidence, but I think your method includes this multi-layered alphabet because it has to; if you don't give yourself so much freedom, your translations don't work. At the same time, real language doesn't work like that - it has to be mostly unambiguous and repeatable because it's meant for two-way communication, where the reader must understand what the author intended. If there are too many degrees of freedom, a language becomes meaningless. 

Quote:5-) Although this seems to create a free space for us to create anagrams, why that all these alternative reading of same words (SAM / SAĞN) are match with Turkish. Could this be a coincidence?

It's not coincidence; it's a fundamental element of your proposed solution that you need a lot of freedom with each glyph and vord. I don't think the correct solution will feature that element to the extent you describe.

Quote:If any person from this group want to create such similar coincidence anagram works (with multiple similar matching options), please feel free to do same thing in your native language and please show us the examples in 600+ words and read many full sentences and indicate that 71+ illustration matching words. In addition 21% of them must be never change phonetically in last 600 years. Moreover, while trying that kind of anagram, please show that the words you read are found in dictionaries in your native language, just as we did.

As I've already said, I'm a professional writer and I couldn't do what you're proposing this person/s did in the 15th century, without the benefits of word processors.

(07-08-2020, 07:20 PM)joben Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-08-2020, 04:59 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So these are the clear answers to this question. Moreover, our claim has already been confirmed by some linguists.
Although they examined our claims, nobody said that VMS was not written in Turkish. And there is no linguist yet who has been able to refute our claims. 

Best regards,

I really hope that your theory can bring us closer to the truth, but it is in my opinion a big mistake to switch the burden of proof. Your theory should not rest on the fact that no linguist have refuted your claims. 

Just to illustrate my point: I could come up with a theory that an invisible pink unicorn wrote the Voynich Manuscript, and no one would be able to disprove that either.

(07-08-2020, 09:50 PM)Pepper Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In Turkish, do the phrases "the baby pomegranate gunny candle" and "the foot stalk is plump, robust, cute" make sense as something one would naturally write and which a reader would easily understand? Because in direct translation they look like word salad. 

For me to say the manuscript has been solved, my basic criteria would be:

1) Other experts in the language (the medieval version) can use the method to translate a page independently and come up with roughly the same translation, allowing for reasonable variation because the manuscript is old and language is fluid. I.e. the results are repeatable.
2) The text makes grammatical sense without the translator having to explain that it makes sense if you kind of squint at it and give the author leeway for being poetic or being constricted by an acrostic.

Until you publish your full method and translation it isn't possible to say whether these criteria have been met. I would very much like them to be, because I want to read this damn manuscript (in modern English) before I die. 

I will say that when you publish your findings, people much more knowledgeable and clever than me are going to ask you much more informed and clever questions. I would suggest you don't accuse them of being emotional, racist, Euro-centric, or try to twist their words to say they must agree with you. Science, as you say, should be about the facts and the evidence.

• First you look at the translation and ask yourself, "Does this make sense?"
  
• Second you have to ask yourself, "Would they normally write it this way?"