08-09-2022, 08:59 PM
The Turkish language is not the only language that has suffixes for first, second and third persons; past, present and future tense. Slovenian has even the suffixes for 3 genders. The distinction for 3 different genders can be found in the VM. Also, Slovenian language has prefixes, which Turkish does not have. And yes, a dialect of Slovenian was spoken in Thessaloniki under the Byzantine Empire in the 9th century. There might be some words still in use, and that could be the reason you cannot read sentences, but are able to adjust your alphabet to approximate those words. Also, Slovenian language has over 600 Sanskrit words, which also might be found in Turkish.
I think the best way to test your theory is to give 5 Turkish academic a copy of one page of the VM text (not your transcription) and your ATA alphabet and let them transcribe and translate the text individually. I suppose if Turkish language was so obvious, they could easy transcribe and translate a page, and the work of all five academics should be at least remotely similar.
[/quote]
Dear Cvetka,
At this stage, we are making presentations for Turkish-speaking experts and we are at the stage where there will be no need for 5 people to take a reading test to show them that the content is in Turkish. These people already understand in the first half hour that they are looking at an Old Turkish texts. But the dialect encountered for the first time is often surprising. However, those who want to do the kind of test reading you mentioned can do so using the ATA key. We are already confident that the results will not change.
Thank you for making a nice reminder. At the first opportunity, we can find five volunteers and give a page that we have not read before. We showed page 33v to a linguist professor. His translation into modern Turkish corresponded to ours about 50%. But of course, sometimes a few of the multiple meanings of words can function without breaking the sentence integrity. In this case, it is normal to have some differences in the translation. In fact, our main claim is not that the translations we make are 100% correct. Our main claim is that there is Old Turkish content in the sections we look at in the content (the dialect of which we have not yet understood, but probably the Black Sea, Thrace and may be Balkans geography).
I do not have detailed knowledge of Slovenian. Nor do I know whether a Slovenian dialect was spoken in Thessaloniki during the Byzantine Empire. But of course, we present multiple proofs in different details that the VM-texts are in Turkish. The overlaps we have shown are not accidental in terms of quality and quantity.
If the content was not in Turkish, it would not be possible to read whole pages by chance, and it would not even be possible to read a few sentences or detect drawing-word overlaps.
In this respect, since the mathematical probabilities obtained do not contradict logic, the overlaps we have shown did not occur as a coincidence. Without the Turkish language in the content, it would not be possible to forcefully read them with using the same reading key (ATA) for Turkish.
Our results clearly show that what we are proposing is more than theory, and that these are early conclusions to see when starting reading studies for all 240 page.
We introduced ATA alphabet transcription as a reading key. With using this key we offer, not only us but everyone can read. Linguists, who are experts in the Turkish language, who look at the content, already see that the content is in Turkish. In some cases, more than one meaning of a Turkish word can overlap without compromising the integrity of a sentence. In these cases, more than one translation can be obtained for the same sentence. But these can be discussed as differences of opinion in this field of Old-Turkish.
I have given the list of the scientific committees for our next presentation here (two pages before). Which we will show an example of reading a large number of sentences and a full page (33v). If we make some mistakes, we can correct them again by taking the opinion of linguists.
In general, it will be very difficult for any Turkish language expert to claim that our pointing content of VM is not Turkish after our paper.
I have not yet to meet a Turkologist who is far from professional knowledge to do this.
Thanks again for your suggestion. We have two different translations for the 33v page. However, as other Turkish language experts translate these pages and different pages into today's Turkish languages, the comparison to be made between different translations will be useful for us to discuss the dialect of this work and to see our own mistakes.
Kind regards,
I think the best way to test your theory is to give 5 Turkish academic a copy of one page of the VM text (not your transcription) and your ATA alphabet and let them transcribe and translate the text individually. I suppose if Turkish language was so obvious, they could easy transcribe and translate a page, and the work of all five academics should be at least remotely similar.
[/quote]
Dear Cvetka,
At this stage, we are making presentations for Turkish-speaking experts and we are at the stage where there will be no need for 5 people to take a reading test to show them that the content is in Turkish. These people already understand in the first half hour that they are looking at an Old Turkish texts. But the dialect encountered for the first time is often surprising. However, those who want to do the kind of test reading you mentioned can do so using the ATA key. We are already confident that the results will not change.
Thank you for making a nice reminder. At the first opportunity, we can find five volunteers and give a page that we have not read before. We showed page 33v to a linguist professor. His translation into modern Turkish corresponded to ours about 50%. But of course, sometimes a few of the multiple meanings of words can function without breaking the sentence integrity. In this case, it is normal to have some differences in the translation. In fact, our main claim is not that the translations we make are 100% correct. Our main claim is that there is Old Turkish content in the sections we look at in the content (the dialect of which we have not yet understood, but probably the Black Sea, Thrace and may be Balkans geography).
I do not have detailed knowledge of Slovenian. Nor do I know whether a Slovenian dialect was spoken in Thessaloniki during the Byzantine Empire. But of course, we present multiple proofs in different details that the VM-texts are in Turkish. The overlaps we have shown are not accidental in terms of quality and quantity.
If the content was not in Turkish, it would not be possible to read whole pages by chance, and it would not even be possible to read a few sentences or detect drawing-word overlaps.
In this respect, since the mathematical probabilities obtained do not contradict logic, the overlaps we have shown did not occur as a coincidence. Without the Turkish language in the content, it would not be possible to forcefully read them with using the same reading key (ATA) for Turkish.
Our results clearly show that what we are proposing is more than theory, and that these are early conclusions to see when starting reading studies for all 240 page.
We introduced ATA alphabet transcription as a reading key. With using this key we offer, not only us but everyone can read. Linguists, who are experts in the Turkish language, who look at the content, already see that the content is in Turkish. In some cases, more than one meaning of a Turkish word can overlap without compromising the integrity of a sentence. In these cases, more than one translation can be obtained for the same sentence. But these can be discussed as differences of opinion in this field of Old-Turkish.
I have given the list of the scientific committees for our next presentation here (two pages before). Which we will show an example of reading a large number of sentences and a full page (33v). If we make some mistakes, we can correct them again by taking the opinion of linguists.
In general, it will be very difficult for any Turkish language expert to claim that our pointing content of VM is not Turkish after our paper.
I have not yet to meet a Turkologist who is far from professional knowledge to do this.
Thanks again for your suggestion. We have two different translations for the 33v page. However, as other Turkish language experts translate these pages and different pages into today's Turkish languages, the comparison to be made between different translations will be useful for us to discuss the dialect of this work and to see our own mistakes.
Kind regards,