Historical Context

[tavie]

You claimed the Hittite language. You did not own the Sumerian language and said that it was not related to any language alive today. So they're either part of your culture or nobody's. Such nonsense is not to be a science.

Wow.  I don't really know what to say to this without it becoming even more off topic than it really is but I also don't see how this can go unaddressed.  As we saw in the main thread for your theory, you are clearly coming at this from a very nationalistic viewpoint - whatever floats your boat - but now you are projecting this onto others. 

This is not how modern linguists work when assessing potential relationships between languages.  No respectable historical linguist is "claiming" Hittite or Sumerian "for the West".  These languages are not owned by anyone.  We are talking about languages that have been dead for thousands of years.  

Yes, it would be nonsense to take an approach to language family classification that is essentially "If my culture can't have it, no one's can!"   But no one is doing it.  No one is deeming a language to be an isolate out of sheer spite!  Ancient Egyptian is classified as part of the Afro-Asiatic family, so neither Indo European nor an isolate.  As for Sumerian, it is not classified as an isolate because efforts to connect it to Indo European languages failed to meet the very high bar for language classification; it is classified as an isolate because efforts to connect it to any other language family failed to meet that very high bar.  And as for Hittite, I'm afraid the evidence that it is an early Indo European language or at most removed a sister to the proto language, is far more extensive than that which you have provided us with so far for your own Voynich theory.

I'm not going to set out that evidence (you can try out your theories in a linguistics forum) but you are hurting your own work with this kind of nationalism, and it is at complete odds with your wish for your work to be perceived as objective and scientific.