02-04-2022, 10:12 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2022, 03:02 PM by Ahmet Ardıç.)
[quote="ReneZ" pid='49741' dateline='1648883208']
I proposed:
[quote]1) take a known plain text in the language that you are proposing.
2) convert it into Voynich MS writing using your rules
3) demonstrate that this result shows the known properties of the Voynich MS text.[/quote]
[and then Ahmet wrote that Step 2 is meaningless]
Your "and then Ahmet wrote that Step 2 is meaningless" sentence you marked is not nice.
For this reason, let me end this answer with the same style, maybe you can empathize with what I said and what I feel after your feedback.
I also perceived that you are far from linguistics in the detail that I explained with linguistic examples for VM texts that it would not work in a conclusive way in the example we examined.
First we have to identify the dialect then we have to rewrite the same words in their undivided and without abbreviations form. Then we can find a living text of that dialect and compare it with that text (based on no 2).
It's simply the linguistic way.
If we do what you say, it won't work. Linguists can make this mistake too.
My time is precious. For this reason, I first evaluate the proposal using mathematics and logic, then if the proposed work makes sense for the text at hand, then I can do it.
I guess you didn't read or understand what I wrote. Because I never wrote that "Step 2 is pointless". I wrote this based on certain conditions.
Ignoring the conditions, of course, the sentence is incomprehensible in the way I expressed it.
I mentioned the special writing style of this manuscript that we examined. With these abbreviations and the spelling that has been manipulated in various ways, I have mentioned through examples that VM texts will cannot offer any overlap with any language in the world in the future (using this method you suggested), including Turkish. However, I took a modern Turkish text and showed some overlaps there.
But if you have proven experience in transcribing and reading unread historical texts, mention them so we can be enlightened by your advanced linguistic knowledge. For example, this is not the first transcription I have made, and I have previously made transcriptions that worked for reading. And I've been doing this for 30 years.
Since we cannot define the dialect for VM Turkish texts, which have a unique and indefinable dialect, we have to call it as TURKİC. When the dialect will defined, of course, with your suggestion (no. 2), can be shown for that dialect too. But we cannot do that at this stage. The reason is because of the special writing style chosen to make the words difficult to read in undefined dialect.
When linguists define the dialect, your suggestion may already show that there is a great deal of overlap. For example, if you look at Uzbek Turkish and Turkey and Kirghiz Turkish, it will be seen that the statistical counts of all the words and letter structures are inconsistent with each other. This does not mean that only one of these languages is Turkish and the others are not Turkish.
If so, let's exemplify the individual topics specifically, or if you consult a mathematician (other than you) she/he will tell you what I mean. May be it is not possible for me to be understood because of my broken English.
Maybe I can summarize this whole long article, which I repeated same thinks differently because my English is bad, in one sentence as follows.
"If we do what you say at this stage without understanding the dialect of the author, and if we do this without correcting the words he/she wrote by shortening and dividing, it means almost like comparing apples and lemon with each other."
May be Rene didn't quite understand the situation despite these simple explanations. But I don't know how can I say to Rene evenly this detail in different level to understand me.
I proposed:
[quote]1) take a known plain text in the language that you are proposing.
2) convert it into Voynich MS writing using your rules
3) demonstrate that this result shows the known properties of the Voynich MS text.[/quote]
[and then Ahmet wrote that Step 2 is meaningless]
Your "and then Ahmet wrote that Step 2 is meaningless" sentence you marked is not nice.
For this reason, let me end this answer with the same style, maybe you can empathize with what I said and what I feel after your feedback.
I also perceived that you are far from linguistics in the detail that I explained with linguistic examples for VM texts that it would not work in a conclusive way in the example we examined.
First we have to identify the dialect then we have to rewrite the same words in their undivided and without abbreviations form. Then we can find a living text of that dialect and compare it with that text (based on no 2).
It's simply the linguistic way.
If we do what you say, it won't work. Linguists can make this mistake too.
My time is precious. For this reason, I first evaluate the proposal using mathematics and logic, then if the proposed work makes sense for the text at hand, then I can do it.
I guess you didn't read or understand what I wrote. Because I never wrote that "Step 2 is pointless". I wrote this based on certain conditions.
Ignoring the conditions, of course, the sentence is incomprehensible in the way I expressed it.
I mentioned the special writing style of this manuscript that we examined. With these abbreviations and the spelling that has been manipulated in various ways, I have mentioned through examples that VM texts will cannot offer any overlap with any language in the world in the future (using this method you suggested), including Turkish. However, I took a modern Turkish text and showed some overlaps there.
But if you have proven experience in transcribing and reading unread historical texts, mention them so we can be enlightened by your advanced linguistic knowledge. For example, this is not the first transcription I have made, and I have previously made transcriptions that worked for reading. And I've been doing this for 30 years.
Since we cannot define the dialect for VM Turkish texts, which have a unique and indefinable dialect, we have to call it as TURKİC. When the dialect will defined, of course, with your suggestion (no. 2), can be shown for that dialect too. But we cannot do that at this stage. The reason is because of the special writing style chosen to make the words difficult to read in undefined dialect.
When linguists define the dialect, your suggestion may already show that there is a great deal of overlap. For example, if you look at Uzbek Turkish and Turkey and Kirghiz Turkish, it will be seen that the statistical counts of all the words and letter structures are inconsistent with each other. This does not mean that only one of these languages is Turkish and the others are not Turkish.
If so, let's exemplify the individual topics specifically, or if you consult a mathematician (other than you) she/he will tell you what I mean. May be it is not possible for me to be understood because of my broken English.
Maybe I can summarize this whole long article, which I repeated same thinks differently because my English is bad, in one sentence as follows.
"If we do what you say at this stage without understanding the dialect of the author, and if we do this without correcting the words he/she wrote by shortening and dividing, it means almost like comparing apples and lemon with each other."
May be Rene didn't quite understand the situation despite these simple explanations. But I don't know how can I say to Rene evenly this detail in different level to understand me.