03-04-2022, 06:42 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-04-2022, 06:56 PM by Ahmet Ardıç.)
Dear Rene,
I am writing to answer the question you asked on the other page here below:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Because it would probably be better for us to discuss whether there is Turkish content in the texts or our claims here, in terms of page rules.
Or, if we have incomplete information about the ninja page structure, if the admin can help us to open another topic, the whole discussion can proceed under the new topic to be opened. However, I am writing ATA transcription related items to here for now.
So, Statistics is one of the methods that linguistics should benefit from, and it's also hugely helpful in making the right match.
This will not work at the current stage, but if the texts that can be compared in terms of statistical proofing can be prepared with the help of linguists, this method can of course be presented as an additional proof.
But when that day comes, our current linguistic based method will have done this for linguists anyway.
Sorry for repeating below, but that's the case around.
It will be difficult to choose the proper text to be compared without understanding the dialect. There are many phonetically far dialects of Turkish, and there is no comparable material to do this today. Because of we do not identify the VM dialect yet.
Even if we estimate the modern comparison text in the same dialect, correcting the 600 years old abbreviations and manipulation words not possible without know the old dialect again. We can only overcome this problem by working with linguists for now.
However, there are complete sentences that can still be read, and there are also Turkish words that are clearly read and unmanipulated, being on every line for about 240 pages. In this sense, there is a complete overlap between the spelling of the words 600 years ago, have insignificant phonetic shift and-or no phonetic change, of approximately 20% to 21% of the words over 240 pages. So we know clearly that the alphabet transcription is correct. In other words, these parts are easily read and understood like reading a newspaper.
So we have ATA transcription at hand which working properly for VM readings. Taking advantage of this, we did some very clear readings. Thus, we have also shown a large number of drawings and overlaps in terms of nouns.
In other words, the current known content is in Turkish clearly and this issue is also undeniably seen based on mathematical probabilities.
In this sense, applying the items you have listed here and using the statistical method means that you want us to verify the subject, which we have verified with a properly working transcription, for you again and in another way. But there's no point in doing it anyway, because let me tell you in advance you won't see significant statistical overlap in current stage.
Therefore, in this case, you should take into account the differences of the texts and the dialects of the Turkish language.
I'm talking about both item 1 and item 2. In order to make the statistical comparison, we must select the necessary modern text from the dialects of the same dialect that continue today. But we must also correct the manipulations in the 600-year-old original text, such as shortening, lengthening, and dividing words into syllables. However, for this, we must first know the dialect of the author again.
In this case, the texts in which the comparison will be made using the statistical method are not ready today.
However, about 700 words, 92 overlaps of drawing and writing, and 100 or so full sentences already give us information within the mathematical possibilities. This information is that all this did not happen by chance. In other words, seeing such a wide overlap by chance and the fact that the readable words overlap within the sentence structure of Turkish tells us that Turkish/Turkic is already in the content within the mathematical possibility.
In other words, when we read the same sign with the same phonetic value with ATA transcription, we say that there are words that overlap with sentences and drawings.
We showed examples of them here on this platform and we found these words in old dictionaries and showed them in dictionaries too.
On the other hand, we don't get much feedback from this group about the overlaps & sentence we share.
Regards,
I am writing to answer the question you asked on the other page here below:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Because it would probably be better for us to discuss whether there is Turkish content in the texts or our claims here, in terms of page rules.
Or, if we have incomplete information about the ninja page structure, if the admin can help us to open another topic, the whole discussion can proceed under the new topic to be opened. However, I am writing ATA transcription related items to here for now.
So, Statistics is one of the methods that linguistics should benefit from, and it's also hugely helpful in making the right match.
This will not work at the current stage, but if the texts that can be compared in terms of statistical proofing can be prepared with the help of linguists, this method can of course be presented as an additional proof.
But when that day comes, our current linguistic based method will have done this for linguists anyway.
Sorry for repeating below, but that's the case around.
It will be difficult to choose the proper text to be compared without understanding the dialect. There are many phonetically far dialects of Turkish, and there is no comparable material to do this today. Because of we do not identify the VM dialect yet.
Even if we estimate the modern comparison text in the same dialect, correcting the 600 years old abbreviations and manipulation words not possible without know the old dialect again. We can only overcome this problem by working with linguists for now.
However, there are complete sentences that can still be read, and there are also Turkish words that are clearly read and unmanipulated, being on every line for about 240 pages. In this sense, there is a complete overlap between the spelling of the words 600 years ago, have insignificant phonetic shift and-or no phonetic change, of approximately 20% to 21% of the words over 240 pages. So we know clearly that the alphabet transcription is correct. In other words, these parts are easily read and understood like reading a newspaper.
So we have ATA transcription at hand which working properly for VM readings. Taking advantage of this, we did some very clear readings. Thus, we have also shown a large number of drawings and overlaps in terms of nouns.
In other words, the current known content is in Turkish clearly and this issue is also undeniably seen based on mathematical probabilities.
In this sense, applying the items you have listed here and using the statistical method means that you want us to verify the subject, which we have verified with a properly working transcription, for you again and in another way. But there's no point in doing it anyway, because let me tell you in advance you won't see significant statistical overlap in current stage.
Therefore, in this case, you should take into account the differences of the texts and the dialects of the Turkish language.
I'm talking about both item 1 and item 2. In order to make the statistical comparison, we must select the necessary modern text from the dialects of the same dialect that continue today. But we must also correct the manipulations in the 600-year-old original text, such as shortening, lengthening, and dividing words into syllables. However, for this, we must first know the dialect of the author again.
In this case, the texts in which the comparison will be made using the statistical method are not ready today.
However, about 700 words, 92 overlaps of drawing and writing, and 100 or so full sentences already give us information within the mathematical possibilities. This information is that all this did not happen by chance. In other words, seeing such a wide overlap by chance and the fact that the readable words overlap within the sentence structure of Turkish tells us that Turkish/Turkic is already in the content within the mathematical possibility.
In other words, when we read the same sign with the same phonetic value with ATA transcription, we say that there are words that overlap with sentences and drawings.
We showed examples of them here on this platform and we found these words in old dictionaries and showed them in dictionaries too.
On the other hand, we don't get much feedback from this group about the overlaps & sentence we share.
Regards,