This is late-15th or early-16th century Turkish from the U Penn site:
Ne habar scizum girlerden?
Hits nesle bilmezom tsaa dimege.
Gioldassum varmi tsenumle?
Ioch ialanuz geldum.
Benumle gelurmitsun?
Irachmider tsenum utahhom?
Hits nesle bilmezom tsaa dimege.
Word-count = 25.
In their video, the researchers transliterated EVA-a as “ə”, EVA-o as “o”, and EVA-i as “i”. They don’t explain whether they are using “ə” as in “uh” (short-u) or “ə” as in “father” (short-a) but it doesn’t really matter—it’s enough to know that they have used many EVA designations to identify common vowels, with the exception of EVA-e which is transliterated as consonant “c” and the one that looks like a "wide a" is not interpreted as an "a" but as a consonant ("v").
Note how in medieval Turkish, “e”, “a” and “i” occur frequently, with “o” and “u” being less common. The counts are as follows:
e- 19 i- 14 a- 12 u-10 o- 5
Now look at the first 25 words of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (or any folio) of the VMS:
![[Image: 1rMinims.png]](http://voynichportal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/1rMinims.png)
a- 12 o- 6 i-4
It is important to note that in Turkish, the letter “i” can follow almost any character (c, g, H, b, d, G, m, m, m, H, b, d) or be at the beginning.
In the VMS (and this is true for virtually the entire manuscript), the “i” (or double-minim glyph that resembles “u”) is always preceded by “a” and only followed by certain specific glyphs.
The letter “i” is common in old Turkish. It is significantly less common in the VMS and has none of the flexibility of the Turkish “i”.
That is just one example out of many. Straight substitution codes do not result in text that mimics natural languages (not even agglutinated languages) because VMS glyphs are position-dependent.
---
When I saw the announcement I was hoping they had found a different way to process or transliterate the text from those who had gone before. I did not expect another substitution code, especially one so closely tied to shapes that do not behave in the VMS as they do in old Turkish.
Ne habar scizum girlerden?
Hits nesle bilmezom tsaa dimege.
Gioldassum varmi tsenumle?
Ioch ialanuz geldum.
Benumle gelurmitsun?
Irachmider tsenum utahhom?
Hits nesle bilmezom tsaa dimege.
Word-count = 25.
In their video, the researchers transliterated EVA-a as “ə”, EVA-o as “o”, and EVA-i as “i”. They don’t explain whether they are using “ə” as in “uh” (short-u) or “ə” as in “father” (short-a) but it doesn’t really matter—it’s enough to know that they have used many EVA designations to identify common vowels, with the exception of EVA-e which is transliterated as consonant “c” and the one that looks like a "wide a" is not interpreted as an "a" but as a consonant ("v").
Note how in medieval Turkish, “e”, “a” and “i” occur frequently, with “o” and “u” being less common. The counts are as follows:
e- 19 i- 14 a- 12 u-10 o- 5
Now look at the first 25 words of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (or any folio) of the VMS:
a- 12 o- 6 i-4
It is important to note that in Turkish, the letter “i” can follow almost any character (c, g, H, b, d, G, m, m, m, H, b, d) or be at the beginning.
In the VMS (and this is true for virtually the entire manuscript), the “i” (or double-minim glyph that resembles “u”) is always preceded by “a” and only followed by certain specific glyphs.
The letter “i” is common in old Turkish. It is significantly less common in the VMS and has none of the flexibility of the Turkish “i”.
That is just one example out of many. Straight substitution codes do not result in text that mimics natural languages (not even agglutinated languages) because VMS glyphs are position-dependent.
---
When I saw the announcement I was hoping they had found a different way to process or transliterate the text from those who had gone before. I did not expect another substitution code, especially one so closely tied to shapes that do not behave in the VMS as they do in old Turkish.