27-02-2023, 03:31 PM
(This post was last modified: 27-02-2023, 04:34 PM by Ahmet Ardıç.)
[quote="Addsamuels" pid='53972' dateline='1677436766']
![[Image: attachment.php?aid=6539]](https://www.voynich.ninja/attachment.php?aid=6539)
[This image shows that your transcription is not perfect, and that there are many flaws. You are constantly changing using EVA (which isn't designed to be a transliteration) and then changing it to match your results.
It's like me looking at fachys.ykal.ar.ataiin.shol.shory
and saying Fach is' egal Aar erteilen Schul [yiddish/Luxembourgish] schor er
The German is: Subject doesn't matter, Divide the eagle (poetic), he cut the school
And then I will just copy some book that agrees with me that Ar=Aar]
Dear Sir,
If you think the texts are written in natural language and you intend to read them precisely, you will need a properly-working alphabet transcription table.
I don't use any variant of EVA and I don't think I need to. We have our own ATA alphabet transcription tables and we use them.
In VM-writing, words contain syllable characters as well as simple alphabet characters.
We made the alphabet-tables for both.
For the signs in the syllable character tables, we mapped more than one phoneme value due to the vowel harmony rule/structure of Turkish, and also by taking into account the cases such as the author's lack of distinction between A and E.
(Note: The author of VM is not the first person who expresses the letters A and E with one sign. Similar situations well known for the Old Turkish texts. There are linguists who have identified the same situation in many other inscriptions in history. We have referred to them in our articles.)
As I said, the author used the letter A and E with one/single sign. At the same time, she showed the letter O and Ö with a single sign, the letter I and İ ( ı & i ) with a single sign, and the letter U and Ü with a single sign. For this reason, more than one sound equivalent occurs in syllable characters. But this is a normal situation for Turkish native speakers. Because there is a vowel-harmony-rule in the structure of the Turkish language.
To give a clear example, if there is an E sound in a Turkish word, A, O, I cannot exist in the same word. That is, according to the first vowel, the reader correctly reads the remaining vowels. In other words, it doesn't make a big difference if they are shown with the same sign. If there is an E sound in any word, if there will be one or more vowels in that word, they can definitely be among the Ü, İ, Ö sounds.
That is, the vowels A, O, I, U never come together with the members of the E, Ö, İ, Ü group in a word. Exceptions can be seen in words transferred to Turkish from another language or in case of deterioration in the phonetic structure of words in some dialects... etc.
There are, of course, words that create confusion in such texts. For example, the words OLMAK (existing, being, 'borning) and ÖLMEK (to die) are different words with some opposite meanings. Here, such words create trouble in the form of writing with an alphabet that does not distinguish between A and E and no distinction between O and Ö. But in this case, the subject flow and semantic content in the sentence tells us which one we should read. The same was true of the person who read these texts 600 years ago. (In fact, I have explained all these in detail before, but I repeat them from time to time, as here.)
Thank you for quoting one of our sentence reading examples here again. We have used the same ATA transcription table for all the words and phrases we have read so far. Any linguist who will look at them carefully and genuinely will see the consistency in our readings. Many linguists have already done this in detail and have correctly evaluated the points you see as shortcomings or fault.
If you are not a linguist who speaks the Turkish language, it is natural to be mistaken when making such assessments.
In the sentence you have chosen, we have translated the word ER into the modern Turkish language in the same way (as always) and in the same sense. In every word and sentence translation, we show the phonetic structure of the related word and find that word on at least 1 dictionary page. Moreover, we often explain the way words are pronounced in different dialects by citing sources, so that we usually given the reader an idea about how Turkish words have evolved in terms of phonetic values.
When doing any transcription work and reading any word or giving an etymological source explanation for a word, we always try to reference the oldest written sources we can find. While doing all of this, we definitely use well-known and accepted methods that have been used many times by linguists.
Now, if there is someone who sees an inconsistency in our readings or if you want to criticize in any detail, please criticize by following this path or mention the details that you think are inconsistent:
1- Please try to ask only and only consistent questions without leaving the approaches accepted by linguistics. While doing this, please definitely choose a specific example and show that in the example you have chosen, "we concluded X in our A reading and Y in our B reading", that is, if we explained different results in our two readings for a same part. In doing so, show your evidence by referring to our articles or articles here.
2- If you are going to criticize ourYou are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.transcription table, please see if your criticism is outside the criteria of linguistics first.
For example, if you see that in our list of syllable characters, we have matched three or four sounds in exchange for an alphabet syllable-sign (so that this is a very natural situation for Turkish because of the vowel harmony rule I explained before), then you remember that same situation has been accomplishmed by linguistics for many reading example of Hittite inscriptions before. And please Do not forget that linguistics read Hittite inscriptions by using approximately 5 different phonetic value for one single sign time by time. That formats and this type of reading is considered successful by linguistics for Hittite inscriptions (& for many other inscriptions), and they use the information obtained from this type of reading in hundreds of history books and thousands of articles.
If you think that we have mapped more than one sound value to one syllable characters, first go back and point out that linguistic scientists should review their academic criteria on these subjects and make the criteria more specific and that their reading may be wrong. Do this so that you have the right to bring the same criticisms to us later.
3- If you want to explain the etymological root of any word, show the word you want to explain in the oldest written source you can reach. But while doing this, try to present the new and old forms being compared by referring to (also showing the evidence) that they are the same or close in meaning or phonetic value.
4- If you are working on etymological roots, you should always refer to a real old written source as evidence. Do not link any word to an imaginary (presumed past) source as the oldest root word. Because this is a common practice that linguistics falls into and cannot find a way out of, but produces plenty of imaginary roots.
For example, we are indicate the oldest written sources in Turkish texts for the word AR / ER, the linguistics that ignores this and refers to fictitious sources should question itself because it is inconsistent.
When you and we all evaluate any article, we should act by knowing how its historical and linguistic counterparts are evaluated, and we should never depart from scientific methods. Although the languages researched using scientific methods are different, If similar results are obtained by following the same method for the compared studies, we cannot show them as like contradictory results. In other words, if the method used and the results obtained are the same, the explanations in the result should not be contradictory.
In other words, questions and criticisms should be consistent and studied as well as claims.
Thanks
A. Ardıç
[This image shows that your transcription is not perfect, and that there are many flaws. You are constantly changing using EVA (which isn't designed to be a transliteration) and then changing it to match your results.
It's like me looking at fachys.ykal.ar.ataiin.shol.shory
and saying Fach is' egal Aar erteilen Schul [yiddish/Luxembourgish] schor er
The German is: Subject doesn't matter, Divide the eagle (poetic), he cut the school
And then I will just copy some book that agrees with me that Ar=Aar]
Dear Sir,
If you think the texts are written in natural language and you intend to read them precisely, you will need a properly-working alphabet transcription table.
I don't use any variant of EVA and I don't think I need to. We have our own ATA alphabet transcription tables and we use them.
In VM-writing, words contain syllable characters as well as simple alphabet characters.
We made the alphabet-tables for both.
For the signs in the syllable character tables, we mapped more than one phoneme value due to the vowel harmony rule/structure of Turkish, and also by taking into account the cases such as the author's lack of distinction between A and E.
(Note: The author of VM is not the first person who expresses the letters A and E with one sign. Similar situations well known for the Old Turkish texts. There are linguists who have identified the same situation in many other inscriptions in history. We have referred to them in our articles.)
As I said, the author used the letter A and E with one/single sign. At the same time, she showed the letter O and Ö with a single sign, the letter I and İ ( ı & i ) with a single sign, and the letter U and Ü with a single sign. For this reason, more than one sound equivalent occurs in syllable characters. But this is a normal situation for Turkish native speakers. Because there is a vowel-harmony-rule in the structure of the Turkish language.
To give a clear example, if there is an E sound in a Turkish word, A, O, I cannot exist in the same word. That is, according to the first vowel, the reader correctly reads the remaining vowels. In other words, it doesn't make a big difference if they are shown with the same sign. If there is an E sound in any word, if there will be one or more vowels in that word, they can definitely be among the Ü, İ, Ö sounds.
That is, the vowels A, O, I, U never come together with the members of the E, Ö, İ, Ü group in a word. Exceptions can be seen in words transferred to Turkish from another language or in case of deterioration in the phonetic structure of words in some dialects... etc.
There are, of course, words that create confusion in such texts. For example, the words OLMAK (existing, being, 'borning) and ÖLMEK (to die) are different words with some opposite meanings. Here, such words create trouble in the form of writing with an alphabet that does not distinguish between A and E and no distinction between O and Ö. But in this case, the subject flow and semantic content in the sentence tells us which one we should read. The same was true of the person who read these texts 600 years ago. (In fact, I have explained all these in detail before, but I repeat them from time to time, as here.)
Thank you for quoting one of our sentence reading examples here again. We have used the same ATA transcription table for all the words and phrases we have read so far. Any linguist who will look at them carefully and genuinely will see the consistency in our readings. Many linguists have already done this in detail and have correctly evaluated the points you see as shortcomings or fault.
If you are not a linguist who speaks the Turkish language, it is natural to be mistaken when making such assessments.
In the sentence you have chosen, we have translated the word ER into the modern Turkish language in the same way (as always) and in the same sense. In every word and sentence translation, we show the phonetic structure of the related word and find that word on at least 1 dictionary page. Moreover, we often explain the way words are pronounced in different dialects by citing sources, so that we usually given the reader an idea about how Turkish words have evolved in terms of phonetic values.
When doing any transcription work and reading any word or giving an etymological source explanation for a word, we always try to reference the oldest written sources we can find. While doing all of this, we definitely use well-known and accepted methods that have been used many times by linguists.
Now, if there is someone who sees an inconsistency in our readings or if you want to criticize in any detail, please criticize by following this path or mention the details that you think are inconsistent:
1- Please try to ask only and only consistent questions without leaving the approaches accepted by linguistics. While doing this, please definitely choose a specific example and show that in the example you have chosen, "we concluded X in our A reading and Y in our B reading", that is, if we explained different results in our two readings for a same part. In doing so, show your evidence by referring to our articles or articles here.
2- If you are going to criticize ourYou are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.transcription table, please see if your criticism is outside the criteria of linguistics first.
For example, if you see that in our list of syllable characters, we have matched three or four sounds in exchange for an alphabet syllable-sign (so that this is a very natural situation for Turkish because of the vowel harmony rule I explained before), then you remember that same situation has been accomplishmed by linguistics for many reading example of Hittite inscriptions before. And please Do not forget that linguistics read Hittite inscriptions by using approximately 5 different phonetic value for one single sign time by time. That formats and this type of reading is considered successful by linguistics for Hittite inscriptions (& for many other inscriptions), and they use the information obtained from this type of reading in hundreds of history books and thousands of articles.
If you think that we have mapped more than one sound value to one syllable characters, first go back and point out that linguistic scientists should review their academic criteria on these subjects and make the criteria more specific and that their reading may be wrong. Do this so that you have the right to bring the same criticisms to us later.
3- If you want to explain the etymological root of any word, show the word you want to explain in the oldest written source you can reach. But while doing this, try to present the new and old forms being compared by referring to (also showing the evidence) that they are the same or close in meaning or phonetic value.
4- If you are working on etymological roots, you should always refer to a real old written source as evidence. Do not link any word to an imaginary (presumed past) source as the oldest root word. Because this is a common practice that linguistics falls into and cannot find a way out of, but produces plenty of imaginary roots.
For example, we are indicate the oldest written sources in Turkish texts for the word AR / ER, the linguistics that ignores this and refers to fictitious sources should question itself because it is inconsistent.
When you and we all evaluate any article, we should act by knowing how its historical and linguistic counterparts are evaluated, and we should never depart from scientific methods. Although the languages researched using scientific methods are different, If similar results are obtained by following the same method for the compared studies, we cannot show them as like contradictory results. In other words, if the method used and the results obtained are the same, the explanations in the result should not be contradictory.
In other words, questions and criticisms should be consistent and studied as well as claims.
Thanks
A. Ardıç