Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript

[Ahmet Ardıç]

Ahmet:
[leaving aside the words, which I am not qualified to comment upon, were modern European-style Arabic numerals in common usage in 15th century Turkish?
Because they don't seem to be used in the classical Ottoman script, which is Arabic based.]

Dear Davidjackson,


It's the first time I've heard of the term "modern European-style Arabic numerals", but I think I understand what you're talking about.

Yes, you're right, it's looking uncommon. 


There were also some researchers who said that these figures appeared in India (not later than the 5th century).

It is not clear which nation came up with these numbers first (with the writing of 1,2,3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) and it is debatable. But I do not want to discuss this either, because I think that definitions with the name of nation are not pleasant unless there is evidence.

Instead of "Arabic numerals"the correct description in my opinion should be  ".... numerals seen in Old Arabic-written manuscripts".
If you want to know why, you can read the rest of my opinion in the section below, where I will mention some analogy examples.

It is not correct to generalize this situation as Arap or Indian. In addition, Arabic numerals are also used in some other manuscripts which written in the Latin alphabet with Arabic numerals and Turkish words in their texts. For example, in a manuscript dated to the end of the 1200s and the middle part of the second half of the 14th century, the numbers 1383 and 1374 are mentioned in the texts. The main writing language of this manuscript is not Turkish, but Turkish words can also be seen in the content.

You know, there were those who said that the Turks used only the Arabic alphabet before. This was an incorrect generalization. On the other hand, we said that the Codex Cumanikus manuscript was written in Turkish and written in the Latin alphabet. Texts with a mixed language in the Latin alphabet or in which Turkish words were used or written entirely in Turkish existed from the first day to the last day of the Ottomans.

In other words, I think that making such generalizations is not an essentially scientific approach.

We already know that European science, history and academies can in some cases produce some terminology in their academic articles in a way that gives false perception.

Is there any scientific evidence that the person who first used these numbers was from the Indian or Arab nation?

This is the same as calling the alphabet you can't read as "European Voynich Alphabet". I would like to remind you that neither the Latin alphabet nor the Voynich alphabet can be characterized as a European origin. While there is no clear evidence that writing was invented by an Indo-European, the earliest known written clay tablets on Earth were not the works of people speaking the Indo-European language group.

For instance, the name AHMET is an Arabic name.
If I was wrote my book in Arabic language, would it be true if any person to correct to refer about me as "the Arap man who first to say that the Voynich texts were in Turkish" after a thousand years from now?

We have touched this kind of VM related subjects in our book with referring to some documents and sources.

Many researcher using some terminology such as Arabic medicine, Arabic numbers, Arabic astronomy etc in their research papers. However, unless if they have not have a related dna test results to prove what they claim, it could be Turkish too, just because of many Turks was usin Arabic names and language in the past.

Even for having important scientific discoveries without empathy and without observing the ethical rules, cannot give us full happiness.

Of course, you don't have to think the same way as me.

Therefore, I must say that the generalization or using terminology like this, is an unscientific generalization and probably a false belief.

Thanks