Dear Ahmet,
in no way was I intending not to be nice.
I quoted you lterally.
Yes, there were a few more words: "... here for us" but I don't see that this makes a big difference.
In any case, I am not talking linguistics. I am talking statistics.
Now quite a few people think that statistics are in principle useless, but please keep in mind that modern linguists work very intensively with statistics. There are so many tools, that it is extremely powerful.
Now, if there is any proposal that the Voynich MS can be translated using a certain language, then several criteria have to be met. Note that all of them have to be met.
1. The language has to be correctly understood. It has to be sufficiently well known to the person who is proposing the solution. Now I don't know anything about modern or ancient versions of Turkish and cognate languages. So, I am not making any statements about that.
2. The statistics of the plain text, the transformation and the Voynich text have to match. In this part I have considerable experience.
So I am not arguing about point 1, I am arguing about point 2.
A criterium for accepting a translation was already proposed by D'Imperio, and similarly by Tiltman. (Note that this is not the only criterium, but one that she found very important).
It says that the solution has to demonstrate how the peculiar statistics of the Voynich MS text arise. What causes them. This means that the proposer also has to be aware of these and understand these.
Now I am not even arguing that your theory is wrong. What I am saying, is that it is not nearly ripe enough to speak about having evidence of being right, or mathematical proof. It is really at the level of a working theory.
I have not yet seen any longer section of plain text from you. Perhaps it exists, but I have not seen it.
What could convince me, or make me very interested, is if you did exactly what I proposed or requested. And I am sure that this would make a lot more people seriously interested.
in no way was I intending not to be nice.
I quoted you lterally.
Yes, there were a few more words: "... here for us" but I don't see that this makes a big difference.
In any case, I am not talking linguistics. I am talking statistics.
Now quite a few people think that statistics are in principle useless, but please keep in mind that modern linguists work very intensively with statistics. There are so many tools, that it is extremely powerful.
Now, if there is any proposal that the Voynich MS can be translated using a certain language, then several criteria have to be met. Note that all of them have to be met.
1. The language has to be correctly understood. It has to be sufficiently well known to the person who is proposing the solution. Now I don't know anything about modern or ancient versions of Turkish and cognate languages. So, I am not making any statements about that.
2. The statistics of the plain text, the transformation and the Voynich text have to match. In this part I have considerable experience.
So I am not arguing about point 1, I am arguing about point 2.
A criterium for accepting a translation was already proposed by D'Imperio, and similarly by Tiltman. (Note that this is not the only criterium, but one that she found very important).
It says that the solution has to demonstrate how the peculiar statistics of the Voynich MS text arise. What causes them. This means that the proposer also has to be aware of these and understand these.
Now I am not even arguing that your theory is wrong. What I am saying, is that it is not nearly ripe enough to speak about having evidence of being right, or mathematical proof. It is really at the level of a working theory.
I have not yet seen any longer section of plain text from you. Perhaps it exists, but I have not seen it.
What could convince me, or make me very interested, is if you did exactly what I proposed or requested. And I am sure that this would make a lot more people seriously interested.