17-03-2023, 08:43 PM
(17-03-2023, 02:18 PM)Juan_Sali wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(15-03-2023, 03:13 PM)Ahmet Ardıç wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1- Were the words in which the vowels are arranged side by side from the third to the ninth in the spelling of the words in the Old Indo-European languages?[Roman numeral 444 written in the style of the 15th century: ccccxxxxiiii. 8 consonants followed by 4 vowels in a 'word'. With this I am not saying that those samples of VMS are roman numerals, I dont think so.]
Dear Sali,
Yep, I understand the detail you drew attention. Thank you for this comment.
In fist looking, theoretically it would seem possible for these to be numbers, but keep in mind please that kind of long word formations also seem to have consonants in different parts of that words too.
Another thing to know is that numbers can be in certain limited numbers regardless of whether they are written with Roman numerals or the number system we use today. For example, if we include zero, the display of numbers up to nine can be expressed with 10 different writing styles. If we look at this detail in terms of Roman numerals, maybe we can add some additional linear expressions for them such as equal expressions for 10, 100, 1000 as mainly. However, even when we add them, the different linear expressions of numbers are less in number than the ones we see in VMS and which are "likely/assumed to be numbers".
In other words, if you/we are going to argue that these are numbers in VMS with this logic, you/we will have to produce new number noun and/or pronouns in numerical multiplicity that have never been expressed in history in terms of mathematics. Therefore, claims in this direction will not go beyond futile efforts that will not be possible to prove. In addition, we also see that the VMS author expresses the numbers between the texts & pages in the forms we already know and use today (as like 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).
Unfortunately, in order to confirm this idea in this point, a single element proving that these are numbers has not been presented/seen yet in reality. Some people may even think that there are encodings that use all in numbers instead of all-words throughout the entire 240 pages. In fact, the numerical multiplicity in the letter content variety of the words in which such miscellaneous words are written is more than the sign forms we need in the need to create numbers. In other words, it should be a more logical approach to say that they are not numbers, since the number of types of letters in them are numerically higher than required in mathematical expressions.
We, on the other hand, can read these words with our ATA transcription, and since we read many sentences in a meaningful way, we know clearly that the content is in Turkish, and we know that when a question has two different answers, only one of tham to be correct but not all of tham.
In other words, if the parts we read are in Turkish, it is not another language, and since we can read, these are not numbers either.
Kind regards,