Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript

[Ahmet Ardıç]

As you can see, the first number of "Persian language of YEK" (آ /  یکی) and the Turkish word "TEK" overlap both phonetically and in meaning. We can establish similar examples between the number pronouns in English and the number pronouns in Turkish too. Etc. ...

For example, VAR (BAR/BİR) > ONE sound conversion should probably have passed from one of the Tatar-Turkish dialects to English as ONE. (VAR > ONE) are words that are close in sound value and overlap in meaning. 

The word THREE (3) in English is the sound form of the word DİRİ/TİRİ in old Turkish. This word can be use as the name of the third finger in our hand in Turkish and one of its many meanings in Turkish was (UZUN/DİRİ/İRİ) "longer than the others (it was said for the longer finger)".

It is true that the numerals from one to ten give some good hints (but of course not 'proof') about the relation  between languages. It is easy to see how these numerals in Farsi / Persian are related to several Indo-European languages. Of course, that is just a small part of the evidence that Farsi is Indo-European.

It is also easy to see that the modern Turkish numerals do not look like Indo-European numerals *at all*.

However, if another set of words, which could include "Tek"  and "Diri"/"Tiri", in old or modern Turkish, do resemble Indo-European numerals, then it is just possible that these were introduced in parallel from neighbouring languages. And these could very well be Indo-European.

Exactly the same thing happens in the Thai langauge. This is a S-E Asian language which has no relation whatsoever with Indo-European. The words for one to five are:
Nüng, Song, Sam, Si, Ha.
However, there is another set that is used a.o. as prefixes, which sounds like:
Ek, To, Tri, Jattawa, Benja.
This shows a strong relation with Indo-European. How could that happen?
Easy. The main religion in Thailand is Buddhist, and many words related to religion derive from Sanskrit, which is Indo-European. Others derive from Pali, another Indian language.

So, if Persian numerals appear similar to some versions of Turkish numerals, this does not mean that Persian is not Indo-European. To the contrary. It rather indicates that these Turkish versions derive from Indo-European.

However, just two out of ten isn't anywhere near sufficient, and a relation between "Tek" and "Yek" appears very far from certain to me.

Hi Mr. Rene, 

You say; "It is also easy to see that the modern Turkish numerals do not look like Indo-European numerals *at all*." But the concept called Etymology looks at how the old phonetic form of a word in a language has evolved over time too. While doing this, it also takes into account synonyms words in that language, if necessary. Here, your experts who write Etymological dictionaries for Indo-European languages are doing this job, almost completely ignoring Old Turkish. This is not a correct method. Word exchange between languages is not only seen in languages from the same group. Many single words in your language seem to have evolved from the conjunction of two or more words in our ancient language. To see what I'm talking about, your linguists must know the Turkish language to a degree that they can take into account. It can be said that they do not (mostly) look at this area at all.

If you're going to research the history of a word, you should reference the oldest written source you can find. If there is an old form of any word in Turkish, it cannot be called Etymology to refer that word to the imaginary sound forms of "PIE roots". This means creating imaginary roots and makes language history difficult to access.

I'm not talking about one or five words. 

I'm talking about thousands of words. 

We know other researchers who talking about same thinks and they listing hundreds of words in each of their many articles and books. However, the sources cited by these are not taken into account by your Etymologists. This is not a service beyond fabricating some kind of false etymological structures.

Persian is not a language from the same group as Turkish. 

I did not say that Persian is not an Indo-European language. Persian word structure is incompatible with Turkish. For this reason, it is a fact that they are from separate groups based on.

Turkish cannot be derived from any Indo-European language. 

Word root structures of Turkish are monophonic and/or monosyllabic. In other words, word roots in Turkish carry meaning diversity and meaning pool. This must be a fairly old building. I explained this through examples in these pages in an earlier comment. We cannot mention the root meaning pools of the roots of words in Indo-European languages for every example. However, every root syllable of Turkish is born with multiple meaning content. Words in Indo-European languages mostly have longer syllable structures. Such a structure must have been formed relatively recently in the history of human speech. Because it would be an illogical inference to claim that long and complex word structures are created without creating the first words with simple and short words. If you will sees two possibilities, you cannot start from the illogical one. For example, for this very reason, the Chinese language must have been formed in an earlier period on the historical line, just like the Turkish language. European (or PIE called) languages, on the other hand, are relatively recent languages in the historical line. For this reason, your language is not a oldroot language, but a collection of languages whose words are mostly borrowed from other languages.

But many Indo-European linguists think like you. Than you can feel good.

However, the fact that many people have an opinion cannot make that opinions true or realistic.

I'm sorry, but late period collection languages cannot be a source for rooted languages, but they can give a small number of words to them. This type of exchange of words from your language to ours may have occurred relatively recently, especially in history, and we recognize the words quoted. Although there is no meaning in the roots of these words, they have a meaning as a whole and seem to have entered the human language as if it had fallen from the roof.
 
Although you and your linguists are not yet aware of the ancient vocabulary of "Proto Indo-European rooted languages", almost 80% and certainly over 50% are of Early-Pre-Turkic origin. But you won't be able to understand this anytime soon. Maybe you will laugh at me today. But this is not a problem and this will not be new to me. 

I write many pointh in this way item by item with presenting many evidence in my book and papers. My goal is to mark that all in human linguistic history. In the past, those who said that the world was flat like a tray were in the majority. May be one day you will realize that your thoughts about PIE today are garbage in real area. If a man evaluate what I wrote through a logical filter, that man can understand this more quickly.

In addition to that, the people who found the first sign of writing in history and the people who made the first alphabetic writing system were definitely not an Indo-European language speaker for sure too. 

Peoples who were nomadic groups and whose words spoke agglutinative languages found first writing signs more possble than others. The fact that the settled peoples invented writing earlier than the nomads is rather illogical and, with all due respect, a silly tendency.

If we were to make an analogy; I'm just one of those guys (in linguistics) and who say the world isn't really like a flat tray. You are probably one of the first to laugh at this ideas, but it is not a point in real area.

Thanks