Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript

[Ahmet Ardıç]

What does it have to do with the Voynich manuscript?

Dear Cvetka,


Only people of Etruscan times were not genetically mixed. Today, people all carry different genes. In this sense, I think that it is not possible to clearly say that someone is of a certain race or nationality by making a racial approach. It doesn't matter what nationality both the VM-author and you or I adopt for it. I approach the issue from a linguistic point of view. People from all over the world live in Canada these days. Their common language is English and/or French. Same situation here. Our author can be Chinese, German, Italian, Arab or Turkish or of any other nationality. But she/he probably be able to speak the language of the dominant culture adopted in that society.

I brought up the Etruscan issue. Because we touched on Turkish Runic signs and writing. Genetically, a dominant gene trait can still be seen in a group of people. Naturally, in which groups that feature is seen today, this information should be taken into account when looking at the past language and writing of that group of people. So, considering that the Etruscan language may have a Turkish language connection, there is little point in trying to match Etruscan writings with the language of the indigenous people of an island in the Pacific.

There is no inconsistency in our theory. Everything is just where it should be. We explain the points where you say there are inconsistencies. In doing so, we present the evidence. If there are places that are still seen as inconsistent, we recommend that you ask about the places that are seen as inconsistent in specific details and not to bring up the topics in general titles so that we can proceed more clearly. Now I have given an example of reading a line on this page. Can you see any inconsistent about this reading example?

As for the Etruscan RASENI issue. Did any linguists ever occur that the word read as RASENI might be a compound word that should be read as "ARAS+ENİ"? There are other reading suggestions as well. However, not all of them will be understood without knowing Turkish.

ARAS (name of a geographic region): You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

ENİ (sister): You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

ARASENI can mean a name given to itself by a group of people. For example, "ENI (younger sister) from ARAS region". Of course, if there are linguists who read the sign R that should be read in the form "AR" or "ER", they would of course draw a completely different conclusion. 

(Another possibility here is that the word ENİ may have been used in the sense of İNME/İNİ (LANDING), that is, to come. In this case, the word is understood as COMING / LANDING FROM THE ARAS REGION.)

Actually, it's not about this RASENI or other reading recommendation anyway. You are repeating the information you have been taught and you have no idea what is written and what evidence is presented on the same topics in our geography. We, on the other hand, think that we can make clearer inferences by reading all the different explanations. Pretty much the same is true in the case of the Voynich manuscript. To this day EVA etc. you did multiple transcriptions and often saw almost everything in the content related to European culture. We show you the different possibilities. There's no point in being bothered by it.

Now I will try to answer your questions.

1. The information you have obtained from the internet about Tamga symbols is incomplete. You can learn about tamgas and how they evolved into syllabic writings and how alphabet characters were born from syllable writing signs by reading the resources I shared in my previous comments. I also write my own conclusions on these issues.

Tamga signs are clearly present in ATA transcription. The author also used them between texts with their phonetic values. However, these signs appear in several places throughout the entire manuscript, and the presence or absence of a few words read with them does not affect the result. I don't make up Tamga signs myself to make my reading job easier. If doing so will make it easier to read, here you go, give the phonetic values you want to the sign you want creatively in the language you want and read it. As I said, these signs are in the VM content.

Also, we did not use all of the phonetic variations we showed against certain signs in both syllabic and Tamga transcription. Probably most of these will be eliminated as the reading work progresses. As I have stated many times, we are talking about an unfinished and ongoing work. We proceeded by trial and error in transcription by reducing all sound possibilities back from the Whole. So we do the hard thing and keep doing it. Please look again at the transcription table in our video we published on Youtube in 2018. We showed more sound values against the same sign there. But if you look at the table on our website today, you'll see that the phonetic equivalents of the signs have been drastically reduced. This is related to the method we follow in our work. However, although we reduced the sound equivalents in the tables we published in 2018 by at least half in 2022, we read twice as many sentences and words.

2. Eight (8) is written as "SEKİZ" in Turkish. The first sound of this is the S sound. 4 is written as "DÖRT" in Turkish. The first sound of this is the D sound. The same is true for all numbers from 1 to 9. The author has used all of these to write with sound value.

3. We have not yet read any prefixes in the Voynich manuscript. The claim that there are prefixes in the texts is based entirely on anagram similes with useless transcriptions. Scientifically, no consistent and repetitive evidence of this claim has been demonstrated. What you and others think of as a prefix consists of parts of words and root words that the author wrote by dividing. In fact, these can be written largely without adjoining any word. That is, the prefixes are not written separately because there is no point in writing the prefixes separately. Voynich author, on the other hand, was able to write what you call prefixes as a stand-alone word. Moreover, even on a single page, it can be seen photographically that very different suffixes are brought to the same root word and new words are produced in these forms. We wrote about this in detail in our book.

Let's show examples from a page and please think about it from that perspective. The word OY is the word AY in today's Turkey Turkish. Now here is a table. There word root is this word. This word can be written on its own. It can also be written on the same page with the root AY- and its additional variations. Now please show us a text in any Indo-European language in Europe where this happens with the same frequency. I could not find a similar example in old or new texts. For example, look at the words that start with the sound AY- or the word, how many different words will you find in the dictionary? In Turkish, they exist in the same frequency and form on the page read.

   

The word OY (month & moon) can also be written in root case. Because it is a root word. If it were a prefix, it would also not be written alone without any word-suffix or component.

This is a good example to show the variety of word components that begin with the same root and are quoted from a single page.

At the same time, the number of examples of adding the same suffixes to different roots is many throughout the writing.

Examples that are similar to these examples and the abundance of examples where the same root and same word-affixes can be observed, as here, will not be seen in the same number and frequency in an Indo-European language, for example.

The variety of word-suffix affixes, which is already seen in less number in Indo-European languages, can be clearly observed.

In the image, the word in the upper left corner is OY and OIY. This word is mostly pronounced as AY in Anatolia today, but still lives in the form of OY in different Turkic dialects.

Different derivative words seen adjacent to this root-word and quoted from the same page are the other words starting with the same root on this calendar page.

4. All of the Turcologists we worked with clearly saw and understood that many Turkish words and complete sentences were read on all pages and all lines in the book. When I give the transcript, they read it themselves, and we don't direct it. Here, it will be necessary to work on the words written by abbreviation and division, but when these are understood, a translation of the entire work into today's language can be obtained with the words that can already be read in every sentence. Getting to this stage is a teamwork job. That's why we can get faster results if we get support.

Already for a hundred years, inconsistent comments were made because the texts could not be read. Most of these comments did not go beyond personal views and interpreting the illustrations in the content. Wait for the explanations of linguists who are experts in the Turkish language. Among the linguists who tried to read the Voynich manuscript with our ATA transcription, no one could say that the content was not Turkish. It won't. If it does, it may result in that person being ridiculed in the academic environment in the future, and I don't think anyone will take such a risk. Linguists have not been able to pinpoint the author's dialect. There are sharp differences of opinion on this issue. I don't think they'll make a statement until they clear this up. They are currently trying to understand the unknown. That's why they're still silent. But this will not always be the case.

We did not name the plant drawn on page 33v as a sunflower. However, we offered one of our multiple reading suggestions for the article in the content. The characteristics written there indicate that it may be a sunflower or a plant similar to a sunflower. However, the last word on this issue should be given by botanists who will work with linguists. The issue of when the sunflower came to Europe and in which way is not yet certain.

5. I have been saying and writing for a long time that the texts are written by more than one person. I don't remember when I wrote it for the first time, but in 2018 I officially registered the first version of our book in "Azerbaijan State body (the state body that protects the property rights of authors)". I already say there and in our various articles and emails and speeches/presentations that there has been more than one person's writing in the content since 2018. At first, I thought there were 3 hands on this subject and I wrote. I said that as the work progressed, there could be 4 or 5 hands. If you want to know the latest situation, I definitely think that there are 6 to 8 different people's writings right now.

Ms. Lisa Davis offered advice on how to write our article and devoted some of her time to helping us. I respect her.

I understood what you were implying and if I understood correctly, it is very disturbing and I did not like it.

We think that at least one person in the time of the book-seller Voynich (probably between 1909 and 1912) interfered with writing using a different alphabet and with a different pen. As we mentioned before, this person could probably be Voynich himself.

But in addition to this, there is another hand in writing. This could be someone like the librarian who received the manuscript during the period of the author's life in the Ottoman palace, or a high-level manager or commander. This person may be someone waiting to read the coded sections in the writing or another officer of the palace. Probably, this person's handwriting (folio 116v) is also the notes on the back page, and we can say that these notes added to the writing by just making notes on the back page, right after the author, around 1453.

Ms. Lisa Fagin Davis is probably someone who worked on these issues even before we were aware of the Voynich manuscript. Since she examined this subject in this detail at an academic level, not an amateur way like us, she probably determine how many different hands were in VM, and those numbers should be more accurate.


If we ignore the additions that we think were made by Voynich to this work and the additions made with different alphabets on the last page. As another possibility, we estimate in 2022 that there may be at least 6, at most 8 different hands on other pages of the book and throughout this work. Of course, these estimations are based on our amateurish reviews only. 

Despite all this, we assume that there is only one main author who designs how the main texts will be written. A single author must have decided what to write in the main texts, if we exclude the appendices on the front and back pages and the touches made by Voynich.

The texts written by this main author, probably have been copying by other hands.

Moreover, the people who rewrote the second copy by looking at the first one , may be have been chosen from those who could not read the first texts they justified. All this is possible.

Please see this:      

For example, the number 3 appears throughout the writing in different forms. The 3 numbers that we have quoted here in the picture, are 6 from the left, probably a syllable character, and the 7th from the left should probably have been added as a tamga sign. If we remove these two, we are left with six different 3 number formats. Considering the additions that we think were made by Voynich and the additions on the last page (in folio 116v), it can be said that 8 different hands touched to this VM writing. But, as I said, we may actually be wrong in the possibilities we put forward here. Presumably, experts like Lisa Fagin Davis explained them more accurately and scientifically, and they must have identified the issue before we did.

I have already explained why we use the ATA manuscript name. I will continue to use it this way. You can find the reason in my previous explanations.

Kind regards

A. Ardıç