+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Analysis of the text (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-41.html)
+--- Thread: Historical Context (/thread-3737.html)
RE: Historical Context - Ahmet Ardıç - 26-03-2022
[quote="ReneZ" pid='49093' dateline='1645874246']
[quote='GeoffreySea' pid='49070' dateline='1645811161']
[Furthermore, the question whether a hypothesis can be refuted or not is a very common one with respect to the Voynich MS, and it is not the right question. A proponent of any hypothesis should provide sufficient convincing evidence, and then it can be discussed.]
Deir René,
If we are talking about evidence, it is already clear what linguistic evidence can be. We show the evidence in turn for the details referred to as the problem. Presenting them with specific answers to specific questions makes them more understandable. For this reason, when we show the word that matches a drawing in the content, we show the meaning of the same word in the old and new dictionaries. What is possible to show in this detail if a dictionary page is not cited as evidence for the specific finding?
We also presented evidence for structural overlaps in sentence structure and word structure with examples.
Please you show just one piece of evidence that your EVA transcription worked. Any transcription that you thought worked here in this platform for many years, as far as I understood, did not work to read VM texts.
Sorry but, all of arguments in this page in many years are a back and forth discussion of arguments for which not a single first-degree evidence exists yet.
Maybe by realizing that EVA variants and others don't work, by posting here you will wake people up not to look in the wrong direction any more. If you do this, of course, it will mean great progress to new start to look new pages with the new transcription.
Do not take the ideas I have written here as rude. I would very much like you to see it as candid statements made in a candid manner. I have benefited greatly from your valuable works. I also gave positive references to these studies in my book. But if you think that VM texts are a natural language, then I suggest you to think that the transcriptions made so far do not work either.
If there is any linguistic evidence that can speak of only one piece of evidence regarding VM today, it is what we have presented.
To understand this, if there are linguists in the group, how would you like to move item by item forward by presenting questions and answers at a material scientific level?
Thank you
RE: Historical Context - R. Sale - 26-03-2022
Can you read the text segment in the outer ring of VMs White Aries?
RE: Historical Context - Ahmet Ardıç - 26-03-2022
(26-02-2022, 08:01 PM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@GeoffreySea. Sounds good, looking forward to whatever you publish / put forward.
[Though wikipedia says:
"With only one word attested—oqurüm, "I have read"—Khazar was stated by the 1986 Guiness Book of Records to have the "smallest literature" of any language"
So it will be interesting to see how you negotiate this hurdle.]
There is no such language as the Khazar language. What you call the Khazar language is essentially a mixture of Hebrew and Turkish. Its main base is the Turkish language. The word —oqurüm in the example you gave is clearly Turkish. We write in today's Turkish in the form of OKURUM. However, there are still those who write as OQURUM form in the Azerbaijani dialect. If you remove Turkish words from the "Khazar language", it will not be possible to construct a single sentence.
Of course, these days Khazar words are sought and cannot be found. Because there is no such language. It is essentially a dialect of Turkish and not a language at all. If Hebrew words are interspersed in Turkish sentences, there is no need to call it Khazar language. In other words, many views are explained for a language that does not exist, and I can say that this sounds a bit interesting to me.
Even linguists tend to get inconsistent, unproven, and profuse misinformation on this subject, a detail that I often discuss with them as well.
RE: Historical Context - Ahmet Ardıç - 26-03-2022
[quote="GeoffreySea" pid='49090' dateline='1645864394']
So here is my working theory:
[I think Monica Yokubinas has made a start in figuring out the Hebrew-based alphabet, and I think that Ahmet Ardıç has correctly assessed that the language is Turkic but he is wrong in saying it is Turkish -- it is Khazar.]
I'm sorry, but there is no data yet that we can say "it is Khazar" or not. Even if you said "it is Khazar Turkish", I think it would not be possible to prove it. Because we cannot find rich word material belonging to the language you call the Khazar language. This language is a language mixed with Hebrew into a dialect of Turkish, but since very little written material remains, linguists could not even reach a consensus on this issue. Whoever gets up early in the morning, those are write for wikipedia about Turkish and Turkic languages included Khazar language.
I know I am correctly assessed that the language is Turkic, because we dont know the dialect yet. Which included Khazar Turkish.
RE: Historical Context - Ahmet Ardıç - 26-03-2022
(26-03-2022, 12:22 AM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[Can you read the text segment in the outer ring of VMs White Aries?]
We read Turkish words on all pages of the VM. On some pages we read complete sentences. If there is a word in a sentence that we do not know, of course, we cannot translate the sentence containing that word into today's language until we find it. If you give the page number clearly, you will see how much we can read and how much we cannot. We do not claim to be able to read and explain all sentences. But there were some readings we've presented here before. We did not receive any feedback from this group about whether they were accepted or not.
Moreover, due to my workload, I can't check the comments on this page regularly, and I can't always find the time to work on the VM issue. But first, what's the point of reading the page you're about to show if you think that the evidence or readings we've already presented are not true?
First of all, I'm curious about your opinions on the readings we showed earlier. Then, of course, I can show you (in my free time) how much we read the texts you are curious about.
Thanks
RE: Historical Context - Ahmet Ardıç - 26-03-2022
(25-02-2022, 06:46 PM)GeoffreySea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm new here and am prepared to shock you all by announcing that I do NOT have any new translation of the text. `My apologies.
I am a historian with some expertise in Khazar studies. What I do have is new information about the historical context that would support the manuscript being a Khazar alchemical work. My hypothesis is that it was recopied in the 15th century from a much earlier Khazar original.
I'm not prepared to announce my contextual information here as I am preparing that for publication. What I am seeking is any information that would confirm or refute the idea that the text is Khazar language encoded (reversed). I realize there is no consensus on this but perhaps when my contextual information is made public, there could be consensus.
I am familiar with the Yokubinas interpretation that it is Khazar but I have not seen any other opinions about that. I have also seen the announcements about the "Old Turkic" interpretation and am wondering if Khazar would fit the meaning of "Old Turkic." (I do have some expertise in classifying Khazar language.)
I will say that assumptions that the text came through Byzantine channels are wrong and the context I have discovered is non-Byzantine.
I will add, if it's helpful, that there is new information that Khazar language was close to Crimean Tartar and Karachay language but ancestral to both of those. It would not be very close to Turkish except in general structure.
I'm very willing to work with other scholars on this.
As I am not a historian, I have nothing to write about Khazar History and culture here. However, if the Turkish language is involved, I can share some of my inferences in terms of language and history, since I think that I have analyzed the different dialects of this language well.
We cannot say that the Khazar Turks have only one dialect. In other words, there may be some who say that they were using the Kipchak or Uyghur dialect. In my opinion, if it is necessary to claim that they speak only one dialect, it would be more logical to think that they spoke Uyghur Turkish, since I think they are of Uyghur origin rather than Kipchak dialects. It is even possible to say that some of them spoke in the Oghuz dialect.
However, the dialect spoken at the court of the Khazar Khanate was not the same as the dialect spoken in the lands they ruled. This empire had extensive lands from the Balkans to Central Asia, including the Black Sea region, and we know that many different dialects were spoken in this geography, including the Oghuz dialect.
Moreover, we know that they did not evolve like dialect influenced by Hebrew in the Khazar imperial centre.
It is possible to reach these conclusions by reasoning by examining historical events, but today historians and linguists have no first degree evidence on these issues.
In other words, other Turkish dialects in the lands ruled by the Kazars were never under the influence of Hebrew. It is reported that the Khazar Khaganate collapsed around 965. In other words, the Kazar Khanate had disappeared approximately 480 years before the VM author wrote this work.
The extinction of this Khanate does not of course mean that its dialect has disappeared. Language and dialects continued to live on, possibly continuing to change in their natural course.
But the main problem here is that we cannot talk about a single dialect as Khazar Khaganate Turkish. Moreover, there is almost no written material left from this language. Therefore, it will not be possible to say which dialect they used in their palaces. If we are to assume that the VM author speaks the Khazar dialect, it will probably not be possible to prove this at all.
Linguists, on the other hand, mostly think that they know about almost all the dialects of Turkish. But in reality there are many dialects and sub-dialects that they do not know and have disappeared. The reason for this is that there are no ancient writings/texts left of them.
The beginning of the extinction of the Khazar dialect, which I mentioned in one of my previous comment, under the influence of Hebrew, may have been valid for the dialect of the administration and the regions close to the administration.
The oblivion of this dialect must have taken place in the centuries after the collapse of the Khaganate. They dispersed all over Europe, the Middle East and Asia, and later to the new continent. Today, some of them live in Germany and Israel, and they completely forget Turkish and define themselves as Jews. That is, their assimilation (of their own choice) to use Hebrew in time must also have probably occurred after the collapse of the Khazar Empire.
So it is not possible to assume that our author spoke the language of the Khazar Empire. Because during his time this empire had long since disappeared and they didn't have a single dialect anyway. It does not seem possible at the moment to say which dialect of the Turkish language our author spoke 600 years ago.
Perhaps in the future, linguists will be able to make clearer conclusions about this, because we are still very early in the VM readings. I can say that we are still in the process of Turkish-speaking linguists becoming aware of the existence of this VM book. Wide awareness has not yet emerged. There are various reasons for this too.
Feel free to e-mail me at GeoffreySea@gmail.com
RE: Historical Context - Juan_Sali - 26-03-2022
To be specific I would like to know how many characters has the VM and how they form words. Are there fixed rules? If not, I would like to know the grade of ambiguity. There has been other tries with no fixed rules and the ambiguity allows a high range of interpretations.
EVA is like an alphabet, is the transcription of the indetermined characters, with a range of possible ones, as there is no consensus on which are the characters. It is a way too to computerize the characters and work with them.
The use the EVA to read VM texts or read directly the text in a literal way wont work in case of a chipered text.
RE: Historical Context - Ahmet Ardıç - 29-03-2022
(26-03-2022, 12:45 PM)Juan_Sali Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[To be specific I would like to know how many characters has the VM and how they form words. Are there fixed rules? If not, I would like to know the grade of ambiguity. There has been other tries with no fixed rules and the ambiguity allows a high range of interpretations.
EVA is like an alphabet, is the transcription of the indetermined characters, with a range of possible ones, as there is no consensus on which are the characters. It is a way too to computerize the characters and work with them.
The use the EVA to read VM texts or read directly the text in a literal way wont work in case of a chipered text.]
The best alphabet transcription that can be made is the one that will make the most words read.
This transcription should ensure correct reading in every sentence on every page and the same letters should be read with the same sound value.
If a transcription is to be made for the VM, it should be taken into account that the texts contain both syllable and simple sound (non-syllable but base phoneme and/or alphabet) characters.
It is not possible to draw conclusions without mentioning and describing the syllable characters for sure.
If someone is going to mention that there are no syllable characters in these texts, then that person should produce new phonetic-values with simple single sound equivalents for more than 100 alphabet signs in number. But 100 or more simple sounds are not seen in spoken languages.
Syllable characters, on the other hand, are the adjoining versions of simple characters, and in this case, it is necessary to know how they are attached to each other. Moreover, the structure to be put forward should be a workable/valid structure for all syllable characters. Currently, there is only one transcription that provides what I said, and that is the tables we call ATA alphabet transcription.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., many characters are the ones we already know from the Latin alphabet. With this transcription, we read about 700 words, more than 90 words that matched VM drawings in same pages, and around 100 complete sentences. These numbers were only discovered when we examined about 10% of this book in detail.
There is no need for consensus on alphabet characters. It is important that alphabet characters enable us to read texts. The rest are unnecessary details.
Here is the "Concatenation logic of simple alphabet-characters":
For more info. please see here > You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(These tables are our intellectual property. If anyone wants to copy and use them even partially in a commercial work, we kindly ask them to read our copyright notes in the link.
You can use it freely for non-commercial works/quotations, provided that the source is cited within the framework of international laws.)
I don't think in English, Sorry for my broken English
Thanks
RE: Historical Context - cvetkakocj@rogers.com - 30-03-2022
(26-03-2022, 12:11 AM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Please you show just one piece of evidence that your EVA transcription worked. Any transcription that you thought worked here in this platform for many years, as far as I understood, did not work to read VM texts.Hi, Rene, perhaps you are too modest to defend your alphabet, for which you never even claimed to be the 'real' translation alphabet. I was able to figure out which of EVA letters were actually in use in the 15th century by comparing the alphabet with the letters in various 15th century manuscript in German, Czeck, Slovenian, Hungarian, and Latin letters. With some modification of EVA, I found all but 4 Voynich glyphs in those manuscripts. My modified EVA alphabet works very well for Slovenian language, and what is more important, the transcribed words conform to Voynich grammar (prefixes, suffixes, one letter words, the frequency of certain words, such as EVA-daiin, dy, and others, and the frequency of prefixes (EVA o and qo).
Sorry but, all of arguments in this page in many years are a back and forth discussion of arguments for which not a single first-degree evidence exists yet.
Maybe by realizing that EVA variants and others don't work, by posting here you will wake people up not to look in the wrong direction any more. If you do this, of course, it will mean great progress to new start to look new pages with the new transcription.
My list of words is too big to show all the words that can be transliterated and translated letter-to-letter to Slovenian language, while at the same time proving that the words existed (and still exist) in Slovenian language, spelled exactly the same, with copied words from the 16th century Slovenian books as a proof.
For the way I transformed the EVA alphabet into proper translation alphabet, you can look up on my web page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I would suggest to Mr. Ardic to do the same. If his theory is the only right one, let him dispute mine.
I am not in a hurry to defend my theory, but I do not think the solution could be accepted on the 'magic of persuation', or by magically manipulate reading from over 100 possible letters.
Cvetka
RE: Historical Context - R. Sale - 30-03-2022
First, it is better to leave EVA and other transcription systems out of the discussion. They have their uses, but they create confusion.
Second, the visual correspondence of VMs glyphs with other examples of letters, signs, symbols and abbreviations has been pretty well established in other medieval documents. J K Petersen has an extensive collection of examples. The problem is with the interpretation.
The problem with interpretation is language, or code, or babble or whatnot. How can interpretation be proven? Not by claims, but by demonstration.
Take the ninja challenge and read the outer ring of VMs White Aries.
This text segment is marked out by one of Stolfi's "start here" markers. While there is also a similar marker on the middle ring of this page, the only other such marker in the VMs Zodiac sequence is on VMs Cancer. While other examples of markers are found is the Rosettes and elsewhere, the three Zodiac examples are clearly more complex.
A second system of designation for the White Areis segment of text is provided by the visual language of medieval heraldry. A red hat and blue stripes, given their heraldic interpretations, are indicative of historical events and ecclesiastical tradition despite their intentional disguise. The marker in the middle ring is connected to the figure in the outer ring.
Markers and blue striped patterns both exist in pairs. Illustrative pairing is a VMs marker to indicate validity.
The outer ring text has a particular repetitive structure, and a papal recommendation. While other texts would also be of interest, this recommendation, backed by the papelonny pun, should indicate this segment's potential significance.